When Can Excited Utterance in Evidence?

An excited utterance can be admitted as evidence if it is a spontaneous statement made by a declarant under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event, without time for reflection.

An excited utterance is a hearsay exception under Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. For a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, it must be made while the declarant is under the influence of a startling event. This indicates the lack of reasoning or reflective thought, making such statements more credible. It is imperative that the statement relates to the event that caused the excitement; otherwise, it can be challenged as being out of context or reflective in nature.

The conception of 'excited utterance' is grounded in the principle that spontaneous statements made in the heat of the moment are often more reliable than those made later when a declarant has had time to think and possibly fabricate or embellish. The courts generally consider both the nature of the event and the timing of the statement in determining whether it qualifies for this exception. The utterance must be made shortly after the event, typically judged by factors such as the emotional state of the declarant and the time elapsed since the startling event occurred.

Relevant case law further clarifies when excited utterances can be admissible. For instance, in the case of *State v. Edwards* (2010), the court upheld the admission of a victim's statement made moments after an assault as it was spontaneous and directly related to the traumatic event. Conversely, in *United States v. Chavez* (2014), a court ruled that statements made several hours after the event were inadmissible as excited utterances since the emotional impact had waned, allowing for reflective thought.

In practice, a variety of circumstances can entail excited utterances, including accidents, crimes, or natural disasters. A crucial aspect for evidence officers and legal practitioners is to establish the timeline and emotional intensity surrounding the declarant's statement, ensuring it meets the respective criteria set by the prevailing legal standards.

• 1State v. Edwards (2010) - upheld spontaneous statement post-assault as excited utterance.
• 2United States v. Chavez (2014) - ruled statements hours after the event inadmissible.
• 3People v. Johnson (1985) - discussed proximity and emotional state for evaluating statements.
• 4Boyle v. United States (2000) - case reinforces timeliness and event relation in excited utterances.
• 5Hannah v. State (2001) - allowed admission of excited utterances made during life-threatening situations.

• what-is-the-hearsay-rule
• exceptions-to-the-hearsay-rule
• how-does-the-residual-hearsay-exception-work