Also known as: excited utterance · excited utterances exception · excited-utterance exception · hearsay exception · present sense impression
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception that admits 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Elena Estrada called 911 after her neighbor struck her during an argument. She described the assault while still crying and shaking. At trial the neighbor was incarcerated out of state and unavailable despite reasonable efforts to secure his presence. The court admitted Elena's statements under the excited utterance exception because the rule does not require unavailability.
Esme Ellington told officers at the scene that her partner had just punched her. She remained visibly distraught minutes later. The partner later became unavailable and the proponent could not procure her testimony. The excited utterance exception still permitted admission of Esme's statements because the exception operates independently of unavailability rules.
Emma Erickson shouted that her supervisor had just pushed her down the stairs while she was still on the floor in pain. The statement fit the excited utterance exception. Even if it had not, the court examined whether the residual exception could apply given the statement's trustworthiness and probative value. The excited utterance route provided the more direct path to admission.
Edgar Evers called police during a domestic incident and described his wife's immediate attack while still under stress. The statements occurred amid an ongoing emergency. The court admitted them as excited utterances because the declarant remained under the stress of the startling event regardless of later confrontation issues.
Eva Espinosa, a young child, told a doctor that her caregiver had just hit her while she was still crying and in pain. The statement related directly to the startling event. The court admitted the statement under the excited utterance exception even though the child did not testify at trial.
Elise Everly told her preschool teacher moments after an incident that her father had just struck her. The teacher observed that Elise was still visibly upset. The court admitted the statement as an excited utterance because the child spoke while under the continuing stress of the event.
No. The excited utterance exception under Rule 803(2) applies regardless of the declarant's availability at trial. The exception rests on the reliability created by the stress of excitement rather than on unavailability.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the nature of the startling event, the amount of time between the event and the statement, and the declarant's emotional state. Visible distress and close temporal proximity support a finding that the declarant remained under the stress of excitement.
…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…
…to cross examine [the] person who allegedly drafted it. Makes me mad." Nonetheless, the trial court admitted the affidavit as a "present sense impression," and Amy's statements as "
…States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio conditionally admitted the recorded conversation into evidence under the hearsay exception
…that likely prevented them from knowing the identity of the defendant in this case. Statements of this kind fall within a hearsay exception that has constituted an important part of the law of evidence for decades. See Fed. Rule Evid. 803(6) (“Records of Regularly Conducted Activity”); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence §§1517–1533, pp.…
…suppress evidence of, say, damage to property, the discovery of a defendant in an "intimate or compromising moment," or an excited utterance from the occupant caught by surprise, but nothing more. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, 28. The majority makes a similar argument. It says that evidence should not be…
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the declarant was still under the stress of excitement when the statement was made. Courts focus on whether the stress continued rather than on the precise number of seconds or minutes that elapsed.
Supporting sources
Statements admitted under the excited utterance exception are often nontestimonial when made during an ongoing emergency or to resolve an immediate threat. Courts assess whether the primary purpose of the statement was to create evidence for trial or to address an emergency.
Supporting sources
The exception applies to statements relating to a startling event or condition. A statement describing the event itself or the declarant's reaction to it can qualify when made under the stress of excitement.
Supporting sources