Also known as: excited utterance · excited utterances · excited-utterance doctrine · hearsay exception · spontaneous exclamation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception that admits a statement relating to a startling event or condition when the declarant made the statement while under the stress of excitement that the event or condition caused. The exception rests on the premise that excitement suspends the capacity for reflection and fabrication. Courts assess the duration and intensity of the stress through factors such as the time interval, the declarant's physical and emotional condition, and the nature of the startling occurrence.
Eduardo Enriquez witnessed a warehouse fire and immediately told a coworker that the owner had left oily rags near the furnace. The coworker testified at trial. The court admitted Eduardo's statement under the excited utterance exception after finding he remained under the stress of the fire.
Elena Estrada was struck by a delivery truck and, while bleeding on the sidewalk, told a bystander that the driver had run the red light. The bystander testified at trial. The court received the statement as an excited utterance after confirming Elena remained under the stress of the collision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Eric Espinoza saw his neighbor's car crash into a utility pole and, while still shaking, told a passerby the driver had been texting. The passerby testified at trial. The court admitted the statement as an excited utterance after determining Eric remained under the stress of the crash.
Emma Erickson called 911 during an assault and told the dispatcher that her partner had just punched her. The statements occurred while the partner remained in the home. The court admitted the account as an excited utterance because Emma remained under the stress of the ongoing assault.
Eva Espinosa arrived at the hospital minutes after being attacked and told the examining nurse the identity of her assailant. The nurse recorded the statement while Eva remained visibly distressed. The court admitted the statement as an excited utterance after finding Eva remained under the stress of the attack.
Eugene Ellsworth received a lab report stating that seized substances tested positive for cocaine. The analyst who prepared the report did not appear at trial. The court excluded the report because it was prepared in a calm setting and did not qualify as an excited utterance.
The proponent must demonstrate that a startling event occurred, that the statement related to that event, and that the declarant remained under the stress of excitement when the statement was made. Courts examine the time lapse, the declarant's demeanor, and the surrounding circumstances to decide whether reflection had begun.
No. The exception applies regardless of the declarant's availability at trial. The reliability stems from the stress of excitement rather than from any showing of unavailability.
A prior dispute may suggest a motive to fabricate and can support an argument that reflection had begun. Courts weigh this factor against evidence that the stress of the startling event still predominated when the statement was made.
Yes. The key inquiry is whether the declarant remained under the stress of excitement, not merely the passage of time. Visible distress, ongoing physical pain, or continued danger can show that the stress persisted.
…statement was inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, it was admissible under a “firmly rooted” hearsay exception for statements against penal interest and that admitting it did not violate the Constitution. We granted certiorari to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the…