About ten minutes after witnessing an armed robbery, a bystander-still shaking, speaking in a rapid, panicked voice, and clutching her chest-sees a police officer arrive on scene and blurts out, "That person just ran out of the store with the stolen money!" The prosecution offers the officer's testimony about the bystander's utterance to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Assuming the statement is otherwise relevant, under which hearsay exception is it most likely admissible?
The bystander's statement is admissible as an excited utterance under FRE 803(2). A startling event (the robbery) occurred, and the declarant made the statement while still under the stress of excitement caused by that event, as shown by her shaking and panicked tone. Because roughly ten minutes had passed, the statement was not made "while or immediately after" perceiving the event, so it does not qualify as a present sense impression under FRE 803(1). Business-records and statements-against-interest exceptions are inapplicable here.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What exactly is an excited utterance in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What distinguishes an excited utterance from a present sense impression?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can you provide examples of situations that would qualify as excited utterances?