
	Where results make sense

Topic: Excited utterances

In the News (Thu 24 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	[No title]
		In his view, Charise's statements to the school counselor were not excited utterances, because of the delay between the time of the incident and the time that she made the statements (id. at 9a-11a).
		Excited utterances have historically been admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, because they are made under circumstances indicating that they are sincere and are ordinarily made before a person develops a motive to fabricate.
		Excited utterances are admissible without a showing of unavailability, not because the Confrontation Clause is "a mere codification of the rules of hearsay," but because an excited utterance is one example of the situation where "the overlap is complete" between the constitutional provision and the hearsay rules (California v.
	www.usdoj.gov /osg/briefs/1987/sg870264.txt (2413 words)

	[No title]
		Thus, like co-conspirator declarations, excited utterances "derive much of their value from the fact that they are made in a context very different from trial, and therefore are usually irreplaceable as substantive evidence." Id. at 395-396.
		Excited utterances have historically been admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, because they are made under circumstances indicating that they are sincere and because they ordinarily are made before a person develops a motive to fabricate.
		Excited utterances are admissible without a showing of unavailability, not because the Confrontation Clause is "a codification of the rules of hearsay," but because an excited utterance is one example of the situation where "the overlap is complete" between the constitutional provision and the hearsay rules (California v.
	www.usdoj.gov /osg/briefs/1987/sg870095.txt (3980 words)

	State v. Richard Robinson
		Excited Utterances [¶8] Robinson first challenges the admissibility of Murano's statement to Officer Gibbons on the ground that the statement was inadmissible as hearsay.
		Tanguay, 574 A.2d 1359, 1361-62 (Me. 1990) (admitting a statement as excited utterance, where the statement was made after the declarant fled from the scene of a shooting, and where the declarant appeared "very much in shock," "shaking," with his eyes "wide," and his voice "excited, loud").
		Other state courts that have examined the "excited utterance" exception have regularly concluded that the passage of time, although an important factor, is not the controlling factor.
	www.courts.state.me.us /opinions/documents/01me83ro.htm (2449 words)

	GP Solo & Small Firm Lawyer - Title (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		The decision whether to believe an excited utterance is not the Rule 104(a) decision; the decision under Rule 104(a) is whether an excited statement was made.
		The proponent of an excited utterance must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it is an excited utterance.
		Excited utterances, unlike some hearsay exceptions, do not require a showing of unavailability on the part of the declarant, because drafters of evidence rules recognize that excited utterances may be better evidence than trial testimony.
	www.abanet.org /genpractice/magazine/march2002/saltzburg.html (1321 words)

	USCA1 Opinion 04-1755
		Their rationale is that, by definition, an excited utterance is made under the influence of a startling event and, thus, the declarant acts in response to that event rather than in response to interrogation or in anticipation of bearing witness.
		The excited utterance inquiry focuses on whether the declarant was under the stress of a startling event.
		Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, here, the circumstances that made the anonymous 911 call an excited utterance were significant enough to overwhelm the caller's capacity to appreciate the potential long-range use of her words.
	www.ca1.uscourts.gov /cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1755.01A (6154 words)

	80 Wn. App. 457, STATE v. SHARP
		The essential factor in determining if a hearsay statement qualifies as an excited utterance is whether the statement was made while the declarant was still under the influence of a startling event to the extent that the statement could not be the result of fabrication, intervening actions, or the exercise of choice or judgment.
		A hearsay statement qualifies as an excited utterance admissible under ER 803(a)(2) only if (1) a startling event or condition occurred, (2) the statement was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition, and (3) the statement relates to the event or condition.
		The assumption underlying the excited utterance exception is that the "stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control." ' " Brown, 127 Wn.2d at 758 (quoting Chapin, 118 Wn.2d at 686).
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/appellate/080wnapp/080wnapp0457.htm (1359 words)

	[No title]
		EXCITED UTTERANCES The "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule is a long recognized one.
		The rationale for the excited utterance exception lies in the notion that excitement suspends the declarant's powers of reflection and fabrication, consequently minimizing the possibility that the utterance will be influenced by self inter est and therefore rendered unreliable.
		This argument, however, fails in light of the generally prevailing rule that an excited utterance may of itself be sufficient to establish the occurrence of the startling event.
	vls.law.vill.edu /locator/3d/Jun2001/001774.txt (4365 words)

	Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
		It argues that excited utterances are not generally made in formal settings, for the purpose of preparing a criminal case for prosecution, and are frequently collected at the scene of the crime.
		Because an excited utterance is made by a declarant who has not had time for reflection or deliberation, the court reasoned that the declarant of such a statement did not contemplate its use at a future trial.
		The State argues that an excited utterance cannot be given solemnly or with the purpose of establishing a fact in court.
	www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us /opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=7785 (3628 words)

	Washington Courts (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		Thompson made to Officer Strangeland at the telephone booth were admissible as excited utterances, but that her later statements, as the two rode together in the patrol car, were not admissible.
		Thompson's utterances during the 911 call and to Officer Strangeland, together with the officer's testimony (which was supported by a photograph showing the bruises) that she saw bruises emerging on Ms.
		Thompson mentioned the shotgun in the course of her utterances, the assault charge was not based on Abron's handling of the weapon in her presence, but rather on the alleged choking in the downstairs portion of the home.
	www.courts.wa.gov /opinions?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=503219MAJ (1422 words)

	[No title]
		He testified that she was "excited," but admitted she was "in control." In sum, a police officer went to the grandparents' home to question the six-year-old witness, but the six year old would not talk to him at first.
		An excited utterance is "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." Ark. R.
		The issue is not whether the excited utterance is accurate; rather, it is whether it is trustworthy, and trustworthiness comes from spontaneity under stress and a lack of reflection and deliberation.
	courts.state.ar.us /opinions/1996a/961028/cr95-427.txt (7541 words)

	128 Wn.2d 908, STATE v. OWENS
		Supreme Court: Holding that the hearsay statement related by the victim's mother was not admissible as an excited utterance, but that any error in admitting either that statement or the grandmother's statement was harmless, the court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment.
		[1] An excited utterance is a "statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." ER 803(a)(2).
		The reason excited utterances are sufficiently reliable to warrant a hearsay exception is that such utterances are "made while the declarant was still under the influence of the event to the extent that [the] statement could not be the result of fabrication, intervening actions, or the exercise of choice or judgment.'" State v.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/supreme/128wn2d/128wn2d0908.htm (1752 words)

	Converted WP file /web/download/n/opinion/Holding/98ca-178
		An excited utterance is a "statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." Rule 11-803(B).
		Rather, we follow our general approach to excited utterances, which requires the trial court to consider the particular circumstances of each case to determine whether the statement "was the result of reflective thought" or whether it was rather a spontaneous reaction to the exciting event.
		In deciding whether hearsay should be admitted under the excited utterance exception, the trial court should consider a variety of factors in order to assess the degree of reflection or spontaneity underlying the statement.
	www.supremecourt.nm.org /pastopinion/VIEW/98ca-178.html (3067 words)

	Excited Utterances Law and Legal Definition - USlegalforms.com (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		Excited utterances are an exception to the hearsay rule, which prohibits introduction of out-of-court statements of unavailable witnesses into evidence when offered for truthfulness.
		Excited utterances are certain statements made under the influence of a startling event.
		Usually, statements made during the exciting event or within half an hour afterward are admitted, statements made more than an hour later are not, and statements between a half hour and an hour are decided based on the surrounding circumstances.
	www.uslegalforms.com /lawdigest/legaldefinitions.php/excited_utterances.htm (291 words)

	STATE OF MICHIGAN
		Defendant argues that the trial court committed error requiring reversal in admitting, under the excited utterances exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay testimony of the police officer who interviewed the complainant.
		Statements made in response to questioning can still be admitted as excited utterances provided it is evident that the statements are made as a result of the stress of the event and not from the stress of being questioned.
		Nonetheless, since the consistent statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, there was no error in their admission.
	www.michbar.org /opinions/appeals/2000/120100/8649.html (721 words)

	Oregon Judicial Department - Publications
		In the argument that followed, defendant referred to specific portions of the tape as unfairly prejudicial and asked the court to redact the tape to remove all references to drug use and addiction, to the possibility that defendant stole the car that he was driving and to the statement about defendant's breaking into the residence.
		The trial court admitted the evidence of excited utterances, but redacted the references to the stolen car and to the method of entry of the residence.
		They could be understood as an objection to the admission of the evidence on the ground that the statements are not excited utterances and are therefore excludable as hearsay--an objection under OEC 802.
	www.publications.ojd.state.or.us /A103587.htm (2589 words)

	No. 97-1798 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		We conclude that the hearsay statement was not admissible under either the excited utterance exception or the residual exception to the general rule against hearsay.
		A decision on whether to admit an out-of-court statement under the excited utterance exception is within the discretion of the trial court.
		The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule is based on the spontaneity of the statements and the stress of the incident as a means of "endow[ing] the statements with the requisite trustworthiness necessary to overcome the general rule against admitting hearsay evidence." Id.
	www.wisbar.org /res/capp/z1997/97-1798.htm (2385 words)

	DCBA Brief, June 2004 - Excited Utterances Statements as Trial Evidence
		On a continual and consistent basis, Illinois courts have found excited utterances and spontaneous declarations admissible, even where the defendant is not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
		Similarly, in 1996 another Illinois court allowed as testimonial evidence under the excited utterances hearsay exception a victim’s statements identifying the defendant as the perpetrator, where the victim died from his injuries and no opportunity for cross-examination by the defendant was possible.
		As such, all use of spontaneous declarations and excited utterances absent an opportunity for cross-examination must be immediately declared unconstitutional and in violation of a defendant’s guaranteed Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
	www.dcba.org /brief/junissue/2004/art20604.htm (3737 words)

	STATE OF MICHIGAN
		Considering the statements excited utterances of the child witness, the trial court permitted the police officer to testify regarding what the child said.
		An excited utterance, which is "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition," MRE 803(2), is not excluded by the hearsay rule.
		Thus, competency of the declarant is not a consideration when dealing with excited utterances, and as a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony concerning the child's excited utterance in the present case.
	www.michbar.org /opinions/appeals/2000/050500/7015.html (730 words)

	Update Express
		Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the definition of an excited utterance is “a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Evid.
		The court stated that when applied to children, the excited utterance test is much more liberal and the level of scrutiny should be less than that of an adult.
		Therefore, the child’s statement was admissible as an excited utterance and the defendant’s conviction was upheld.
	www.ndaa-apri.org /apri/programs/ncpca/update_express_dec_2004.html (420 words)

	[No title]
		As discussed in Section II of this brief, the victim's statements to the peace officer are admissible as excited utterances under the narrow limits of the case law of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
		See id. The fourth factor that indicates that Texas excited utterances are not affected by the Crawford changes is the difference between Texas excited-utterance case law, with its narrow limits, and the Illinois spontaneous declarations in White v.
		Therefore, since the victim's statements qualify as excited utterances under Texas case law and are thus nontestimonial and non-offensive to the Confrontation Clause, the State asks that this Court admit the victim's statements into evidence.
	www.tdcaa.com /documentroot/genericcrawfordtrialbrief.doc (2919 words)

	No. 2-03-0486, People v. Victors
		The State responded that the statements were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception to the rule against hearsay.
		Defense counsel objected, arguing that the State had not laid the requisite foundational elements to establish the "excited utterance" exception because there was no evidence presented to establish a "triggering event" that brought about the excited utterances.
		One of the requirements for an excited utterance is the "absence of time to fabricate" the statement.
	www.state.il.us /court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2004/2ndDistrict/November/Html/2030486.htm (5641 words)

	Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
		The trial court determined that Maria=s statements to Officers McGowan and Oliva were admissible as excited utterances, and that they could qualify as present sense impressions and statements of an existing state of physical condition.
		State, the defendant argued that his victim=s statements to a co-worker and an ambulance attendant shortly after she was allegedly shot by the defendant were not excited utterances.
		Although we have concluded that Maria=s statements fall under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, we must further analyze her statements in light of Crawford v.
	www.4thcoa.courts.state.tx.us /opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=17720 (3616 words)

	No. 01CA0527. People v. Garrison. - October 7, 2004 - Colorado Court of Appeals Opinions (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-26)
		An excited utterance is an exception to the hearsay rule and is defined as "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition."CRE 803(2); People in Interest of O.E.P., 654 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1982).
		Defendant argues in his brief on appeal that the statements made by the victim during and after the phone calls were not excited utterances because the series of calls was not a startling event.
		In ruling that the statements were admissible under CRE 807, the residual hearsay exception, the trial court found that these statements were a continuation of the February 21 statements, the victim had no motive to lie, and the statements were offered as evidence of a material fact.
	www.cobar.org /opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=4817 (2226 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)