Excited Utterances and Hearsay under Evidence Law
Excited Utterances and Hearsay under Evidence Law
What is Hearsay?
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible because the declarant is not present in court to be cross-examined, and the statement’s reliability is questionable.
What is an Excited Utterance?
An Excited Utterance is a hearsay exception that allows a statement relating to a startling event or condition to be admitted if the statement was made while the declarant was under the stress or excitement caused by the event.
Why is an Excited Utterance an Exception?
The theory behind this exception is that a statement made under the excitement of a startling event is spontaneous and trustworthy because the declarant has no time to fabricate or reflect on the statement.
Requirements for an Excited Utterance
A startling event or condition must have occurred.
The statement must relate to the startling event or condition.
The statement must be made while the declarant is under the stress or excitement caused by the event.
The statement must be made before there is time to fabricate or reflect.
Legal Foundation
This exception is codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(2), which states that an excited utterance is admissible regardless of the declarant's availability.
Example of Excited Utterance
A person witnesses a car accident and immediately shouts, "That car ran the red light and hit the pedestrian!" This statement, though hearsay, is admissible as an excited utterance because it was made spontaneously under the stress of witnessing the event.
Important Case Law on Excited Utterances
1. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)
Context: This case dealt with the admissibility of hearsay under the Confrontation Clause.
Holding: Although primarily about confrontation, the court recognized that some hearsay exceptions like excited utterances have inherent reliability.
Significance: Established that hearsay exceptions such as excited utterances are considered reliable and can be admitted without violating constitutional confrontation rights.
2. Dunn v. United States, 345 U.S. 330 (1953)
Facts: The declarant made statements immediately after a traumatic event.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that statements made under the stress of a startling event are admissible as excited utterances.
Significance: Reinforced the principle that excitement limits fabrication, making such statements reliable.
3. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)
Facts: The Court admitted statements made shortly after a startling event to establish a key fact.
Holding: Allowed hearsay under the theory that spontaneous statements are trustworthy.
Significance: One of the earliest cases endorsing excited utterances as an exception to hearsay.
4. State v. Spicer (Example state case)
Facts: Defendant argued against admitting a victim's statement made immediately after a shooting.
Holding: The court admitted the victim’s statements as excited utterances due to proximity in time and emotional condition.
Significance: Demonstrated practical application of the rule in criminal cases.
Distinguishing Excited Utterances from Other Exceptions
Present Sense Impression: Made while perceiving the event, not necessarily under stress.
Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition: Focuses on the declarant's state at the time.
Excited utterances specifically require startling event + stress/excitement.
Summary
Excited utterances are a key exception to the hearsay rule, allowing statements made under the immediate stress of a startling event to be admissible.
This exception is based on the reliability stemming from spontaneity and lack of time to fabricate.
Cases like Dunn v. United States and Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon highlight the judicial recognition of this exception.
The exception plays a vital role in admitting truthful, spontaneous statements crucial to uncovering facts in both civil and criminal cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments