Criminal Law
State v. Vance, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12345 (9th Cir. 2023)
Study notes for State v. Vance: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The excited utterance exception to hearsay requires that the statement be spontaneous and reliable, and its violation can infringe upon the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
In State v. Vance, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the importance of the excited utterance exception to hearsay and closely examined its requirements, particularly spontaneity and reliability. The court pointed out that hearsay—specifically statements made by a deceased individual—must meet certain criteria to ensure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses is upheld. The decision demonstrates the delicate balance between evidentiary rules and constitutional protections in criminal proceedings, and it highlights how critically courts assess the reliability of statements made outside of court.
Furthermore, professors may emphasize the implications of this case on the prosecution's burden of proving that statements fall within established hearsay exceptions, demonstrating how failure to meet such burdens can lead to significant effects on a defendant's rights. This case serves as an essential marker for future litigation involving hearsay evidence, especially regarding the standards for admissibility when critical witness testimony cannot be obtained due to death or unavailability.
E.E. Sp.R. for 'Excited utterance requires Spontaneity and Reliability.'
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Davis v. Washington | In Davis v. Washington, the statements were made in an ongoing emergency, which supported spontaneity and urgency, unlike in Vance. |
| Ohio v. Roberts | Ohio v. Roberts allowed for hearsay under certain conditions when the witness was unavailable, while Vance emphasized the necessity of spontaneity in excited utterances. |
Admitting excited utterances can expedite justice by allowing critical eyewitness accounts to enter the record despite witness unavailability, promoting truth-finding.
Allowing hearsay can undermine defendants' rights to confront accusers, which may lead to wrongful convictions and jeopardize fair trial standards.
This case may appear on exams focusing on hearsay exceptions, particularly the excited utterance exception, and the intersection with constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment. Be prepared to analyze the reliability and spontaneity aspects of hearsay evidence.