spontaneous exclamation

(redirected from Excited utterance)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

spontaneous exclamation

n. a sudden statement caused by the speaker having seen a surprising, startling or shocking event, (such as an accident or a death), or having suffered an injury. Even though the person who made the spontaneous exclamation is not available (such as he/she is dead or missing), a person who heard the exclamation may testify about it as an exception to the rule against "hearsay" evidence. The reason is that such an exclamation lacks planning and is assumed to have the ring of truth to it. Examples: "Chauncey shot me," "my leg is broken," "the blue Chevrolet hit me." (See: hearsay)

References in periodicals archive ?
Cynthia Ross was appointed to chair a special subcommittee to reconsider and review a private citizen's proposal to amend or abolish the excited utterance and present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule [F.S.
"In determining whether an out-of- court statement qualifies as an excited utterance, the 'essential issue is whether the statement was made under the stress of an "exciting event and before the declarant has had time to contrive or fabricate the remark, and thus ...
Establish a classic hearsay exception such as the Excited Utterance Exception or Present Sense Impression, and a caller's statement will likely be considered a non-testimonial Confrontation Clause Exception under Crawford v.
the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions, in
These entail the exceptions for an excited utterance, present sense
The district attorney's office filed three motions to admit an "excited utterance'' made by the alleged victim to Officer Richard Reddick, Sgt.
(193) These matters include whether an excited utterance has been made, whether a conspiracy existed, whether a statement was offered for something other than the truth of the matter asserted, and whether "trustworthiness" determinations were found in several hearsay exceptions.
Rather, it focuses them on ending a threatening situation." (46) This focus is believed to "significantly diminish"--"not unlike that justifying the excited utterance exception in hearsay law"--"the prospect of fabrication" such that "the Confrontation Clause does not require such statements to be subject to the crucible of cross-examination." (47) The purpose "is not to create a trial record and thus not within the scope of the [Confrontation] Clause." (48)
To see why this is so, contrast the present sense impression exception with the closely related hearsay exception for "excited utterances." (63) The excited utterance exception applies if a speaker makes a statement relating to a "startling" event while "under the stress of [the resulting] excitement." (64) As a practical matter, startling events and excited utterances frequently coexist.
For example, courts have admitted statements made long after an abusive event through the "excited utterance" exception.
(11) One judge in New York put his frustration into writing when he was asked to admit an emergency call to the police under the excited utterance exception:
(52) Crawford addressed the problem of the use of excited utterance evidence in light of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution.