§ 10.09 EXCITED OR STARTLED UTTERANCES

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 10.09 EXCITED OR STARTLED UTTERANCES

[1] THE DOCTRINE

In the last three sections, we analyzed documentary hearsay exceptions resting primarily on a showing of reliability. In each case, the showing is based on testimony describing the trustworthy manner in which the document was generated. The next four sections address other hearsay exceptions recognized principally because of an inference of reliability. In these exceptions, however, the inference of reliability has a different basis; each exception in this category is a variation of the ancient res gestae doctrine and rests on an inference of the declarant's sincerity. This category includes excited utterances, present sense impressions, declarations of bodily condition, and statements of mental condition.

The exception for excited utterances illustrates the common rationale of the exceptions in this category. A startling event occurs, an observer becomes excited, and the observer then makes a spontaneous statement about the event. The statement's spontaneity is the circumstantial guarantee of the declarant's sincerity. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) describes the doctrine in this fashion: "The following [is] not excluded by the rule against hearsay . . .: A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused."

[2] ELEMENTS OF THE FOUNDATION

The foundation for an excited utterance includes the following elements:

1. An event occurred. Many jurisdictions, including the federal courts, do not require any independent, corroborating evidence that the event occurred; these courts accept the declarant's assertion of the event's occurrence at face value. A minority of jurisdictions requires independent evidence as part of the foundation. However, even in these jurisdictions, the quantum of required corroboration is usually slight. For example, if the declaration refers to an assault on the declarant and, at the time, the declarant's clothing was dirty and disheveled, the declarant's appearance might be sufficient corroboration that the assault occurred.
2. The event was startling, or at least stressful. This element is the objective guarantee of the statement's sincerity. The nature of the event was likely to inspire stress or nervous excitement.
3. The declarant had personal knowledge of the event. The declarant must have been a participant in or observer of the event. Again, the courts apply this element laxly. In some cases,

...