excited utterance exception in Missouri

2020We consider the following factors in deciding whether application of the excited-utterance exception is appropriate: “[1] the time between the startling event and the declaration, [2] whether the declaration is in response to a question, [3] whether the declaration is self-serving, and [4] the declarant’s physical and mental condition at the time of the declaration.” State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc 2007) (internal citation omitted).

2016She was very excitable, just shaking.” “The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule depends on a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection such that the ensuing declaration is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event.” State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo.banc 2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2023The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule applies when “(1) a startling event or condition occurs; (2) the statement is made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event and has not had the opportunity to fabricate the story; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event.” State v. Riley, 440 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (quoting State v. Hedges, 193 S.W.3d 784, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)).

2021“The excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay applies when: (1) a startling event or condition occurs; (2) the statement is made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event and has not had an opportunity to fabricate the story; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event.” State v. Gray, 347 S.W.3d at 500 (quoting State v. Hedges, 193 S.W.3d 784, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)).

2023"The essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited utterance is neither the time nor place of its utterance but whether it was made under such circumstances as to indicate it is trustworthy." Gott, 523 S.W.3d at 577 (quoting State v. Van Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo. banc 1982)).

2017“The essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited utterance is neither the time nor place of its utterance but whether it was made under such circumstances as to indicate it is trustworthy.” State v. Van Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo. 1982).

2017“The excited-utterance exception is based on the human experience, that under certain external circumstances of physical shock, a stress of nervous excitement may be produced which stills the reflective faculties and removes their control, so that the utterance which then occurs is a spontaneous and sincere response to the actual sensations and perceptions already produced by the external shock.” State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995).

1996The excited utterance exception applies when “(1) a startling event or condition occurs; (2) a statement is made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement caused by the event and has not had an opportunity to fabricate; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event.” State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Mo.App.1995).

2023"The excited-utterance exception applies to statements made following a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection, such that the ensuing declaration is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event." State v. Robinson, 535 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

2020State v. Robinson, 535 S.W.3d 761, 766 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal citation omitted).

2023The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule applies when “(1) a startling event or condition occurs; (2) the statement is made while the declarant is still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event and has not had the opportunity to fabricate the story; and (3) the statement relates to the startling event.” State v. Riley, 440 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (quoting State v. Hedges, 193 S.W.3d 784, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006)).

2016State v. Riley, 440 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Mo.App.

2019On appeal, Patrick does not dispute that portions of the 911 call fell within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 10 prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court’s error affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Mo. banc 2006).

2008“A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value.” State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc 2007) (quoting State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Mo. banc 2006)).

2007“The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule depends on a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection such that the ensuing declaration is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event.” Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Mo. banc 1995) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2004See Bynote v. Nat’l Super Mkts., Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Mo. banc 1995) (discussing the excited utterance exception); City of Riverside v. Progressive Inv.

1994As the Missouri Supreme Court recently reiterated, “[t]he test for excited utterance is whether it was ‘made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses as a result of the shock produced by the event.’ ” State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Mo. banc 1993) (quoting State v. Van Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo.1982)).

1994State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Mo. banc 1993).

2018The excited utterance exception applies to statements made by a witness "following a startling or unusual occurrence *176 sufficient to overcome normal reflection such that the ensuing declaration is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event." State v. Turner , 420 S.W.3d 666 , 669 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (internal quotations omitted).

2017State v. Turner, 420 S.W.3d 666, 669 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).

2023State v. Gott, 523 S.W.3d 572, 577 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017).

2023"The essential test for admissibility of a spontaneous statement or excited utterance is neither the time nor place of its utterance but whether it was made under such circumstances as to indicate it is trustworthy." Gott, 523 S.W.3d at 577 (quoting State v. Van Orman, 642 S.W.2d 636, 639 (Mo. banc 1982)).

2020See Townsel, 564 S.W.3d at 736 .

2019“For a 911 tape to be admissible, it must clear two hurdles.” State v. McKinney, 336 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Mo. App. 2011). “‘First, the statements must survive traditional hearsay analysis.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Mo. App. 2009)). “‘Second, because this is a criminal case, the statements must survive Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis.’” Id.

2019“For a 911 tape to be admissible, it must clear two hurdles.” State v. McKinney, 336 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Mo. App. 2011). “‘First, the statements must survive traditional hearsay analysis.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Mo. App. 2009)). “‘Second, because this is a criminal case, the statements must survive Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis.’” Id.

2019“For a 911 tape to be admissible, it must clear two hurdles.” State v. McKinney, 336 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Mo. App. 2011). “‘First, the statements must survive traditional hearsay analysis.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Mo. App. 2009)). “‘Second, because this is a criminal case, the statements must survive Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis.’” Id.

2019“For a 911 tape to be admissible, it must clear two hurdles.” State v. McKinney, 336 S.W.3d 499, 502 (Mo. App. 2011). “‘First, the statements must survive traditional hearsay analysis.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52, 59 (Mo. App. 2009)). “‘Second, because this is a criminal case, the statements must survive Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis.’” Id.

2017State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883, 896 (Mo. banc 2015).

2016Further, the declarant of the challenged statement, Duck, testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. “[Prejudice will not be found from the admission of hearsay testimony where the declarant was also a witness at trial, testified on the same matter, and was subject to cross-examination because the primary defects in hearsay testimony are alleviated.” State v. Jackson, 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo.App.

2016Further, the declarant of the challenged statement, Duck, testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. “[P]rejudice will not be found from the admission of hearsay testimony where the declarant was also a witness at trial, testified on the same matter, and was subject to cross-examination because the primary defects in hearsay testimony are alleviated.” State v. 14 Jackson, 426 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Mo.App.

2016However, “[i]f a statement otherwise meets the excited utterance test[,] it should not be excluded simply because it is helpful to the de-clarant’s position.” State v. Williams, 673 *820 S.W.2d 32, 35 (Mo.banc 1984) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2014Alleged excited utterances are pre sumably inadmissible hearsay and the party offering the statement as an excited utterance “bears the burden of making a sufficient showing of spontaneity to render the statement admissible.” State v. Kemp, 919 S.W.2d 278, 280 (Mo.App.W.D.1996).

2013Even assuming, arguendo, that Appellant is correct, and that the trial court erred in admitting Adams’s statements under the excited utterance exception, “[t]he improper admission of hearsay evidence requires reversal [only] if such evidence is prejudicial.” Saint Louis Univ. v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Mo. banc 2009).

2013“A complaining party is not entitled to assert prejudice if the challenged evidence is cumulative to other related admitted evidence.” Id. at 292 (internal quotation omitted).

2008Kemp, 212 S.W.3d at 146-47 ; see also State v. Edwards, 31 S.W.3d 73, 78-80 (Mo.App.

2004Club of Kansas City, Inc., 45 S.W.3d 905, 911-12 (Mo.App.2001) (discussing the exception allowing a condemnation expert to base his valuation on hearsay).

2000Our Supreme Court has previously held that “[t]he temporal proximity between the event and the statement need not be simultaneous so long as the statement is provoked by the excitement of the event and apparent spontaneous influence of the occurrence acting on the senses of the speaker in which case it can qualify as an exception to the hearsay strictures.” State v. White, 621 S.W.2d 287, 295 (Mo.1981).

1995The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule depends on a “startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection [such that] the ensuing declaration [is] a spontaneous reaction to the startling event.” Jones v. Wahlic, 667 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo.App.1984) (citing Wren v. St.

1995Louis Public Service Co., 333 S.W.2d 92, 94-95 (Mo.1960)).