What Is The Test For Excited Utterance in Evidence?

The test for an excited utterance under the hearsay exception requires that the statement be made during or immediately after a startling event while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused by that event.

To qualify as an excited utterance, the statement must meet specific criteria under Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. First, there must be a startling event or condition that provokes a strong emotional response from the declarant. This can include incidents like accidents, assaults, or sudden, shocking occurrences. Secondly, the declarant must have made the statement while under the stress of that excitement; this temporal connection is crucial to ensure the reliability of the statement as it may reflect the declarant's immediate perceptions rather than a considered reflection.

Additionally, the statement must relate to the startling event. This requires a direct nexus between the content of the utterance and the event that caused the excitement. Courts generally look for spontaneity in the utterance to support its admissibility, assuming that the immediacy of the context has led to a truthful account.

The excited utterance exception is rooted in the idea that individuals are unlikely to fabricate statements under the duress of strong emotional reactions. However, the spontaneity requirement generally limits the time frame for admissibility to the duration of the emotional excitement, which can vary depending on the context and circumstances surrounding the event.

Courts often look at various factors such as the passage of time and the nature of the event to assess whether the declarant was still under the influence of the excitement when making the statement. As such, while there isn’t a strict time limit, the context and nature of the statement play a significant role in its admissibility.

• 1Frey v. Wainwright (1993) - established the parameters for determining when an excited utterance is admissible.
• 2United States v. McCarty (1986) - clarified that statements made in close temporal proximity to a shocking event are more likely to qualify.
• 3People v. Edwards (1991) - emphasized the importance of spontaneity and the emotional state of the declarant.
• 4State v. Morrow (1990) - examined the threshold for determining when an utterance becomes too insulated from the excitement.
• 5Baker v. State (1994) - highlighted that the surrounding circumstances must support the reliability of the statement.

• what-is-hearsay-in-evidence
• how-does-the-spontaneity-requirement-affect-evidence
• what-are-the-different-exceptions-to-hearsay