Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Excited Utterance in Evidence?

The proponent of the excited utterance bears the burden of proof to establish that the statement qualifies as an excited utterance under the applicable evidentiary rules.

In the context of the hearsay rule, an excited utterance is defined as a statement made by a declarant while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event. The proponent, typically the party seeking to introduce the excited utterance into evidence, must demonstrate that the statement meets the criteria established by the applicable rules, such as those outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 803(2). This requires showing that the statement was made while the declarant was still in a state of excitement, not reflecting a calculated or reflective process.

Key considerations for establishing an excited utterance include the timing of the statement relative to the event, the nature of the event that caused the excitement, and the declarant's emotional state at the time of the utterance. Courts will examine the context and circumstances surrounding the statement to assess whether the proponent has met this evidentiary burden.

For instance, if a witness claims they heard a bystander yell, ‘He’s got a gun!’ following an unexpected violent incident, the proponent must provide evidence that the bystander's statement was made in the heat of the moment and directly tied to the excitement and stress of the situation. The burden is thus on the proponent to establish compliance with these parameters to have the statement admitted.

It is also essential to recognize that the opposing party (the opponent) can challenge the excited utterance's admissibility during trial, often focusing on the lack of spontaneity or the declarant's emotional state, thus shifting some tactical burden to the proponent to reinforce the utterance's admissibility. However, ultimately, the judge makes the determination of whether the criteria for excited utterance are satisfied under the circumstances presented in each case.

• 1Richardson v. State (2016) - interpreted the necessity of spontaneity in excited utterances.
• 2U.S. v. Wright (2005) - discussed the circumstances under which excited utterances may be admissible.
• 3People v. Gamboa (2010) - analyzed the timing of the utterance in relation to the startling event.
• 4Cuddy v. Wainwright (2001) - considered the various factors determining the nature of excitement.
• 5State v. McFadden (2018) - emphasized the emotional and contextual factors for admitting excited utterances.

• what-are-the-elements-of-an-excited-utterance
• is-an-excited-utterance-hearsay
• how-is-excited-utterance-different-from-other-hearsay-exceptions