During a robbery, a bystander immediately states, 'That person is running out of the store with the stolen money!' in a highly agitated voice. The prosecution seeks to admit this testimony as evidence. Under which rule of hearsay exceptions is this statement admissible?
This statement qualifies as an excited utterance because it was made while the bystander was under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event (the robbery). Unlike a present sense impression, which requires a statement to describe or explain an event contemporaneously but does not necessarily require excitement, an excited utterance requires the declarant to still be in an emotionally excited or agitated state as a result of the event. Here, the bystander's agitated tone demonstrates this emotional state. Other hearsay exceptions, such as business records or statements against interest, are unrelated to this scenario.
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?