excited utterance exception in Maryland

2024It, however, may be some indication of reflective thought which makes it less likely that the statement falls within the excited utterance exception.” Id. (citation omitted).

2013Even before “the adoption of Title 5 of the Maryland Rules [in 1994], we noted that the excited utterance exception requires a startling event and a spontaneous statement which is the result of the declarant’s reaction to the occurrence.” Harrell, 348 Md. at 78 , 702 A.2d at 727 (quotation omitted).

2023(Emphasis supplied.) As Maryland, and the nation at large, emerged from a long period of explaining exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay by the now superseded and awkward concept of res gestae, the first significant opinion of the Maryland Supreme Court to refer to the Excited Utterance exception directly with that terminology was Mouzone v. State, 294 Md. 19 692 , 452 A.2d 661 (1982).6 Judge Cole explained the generative rationale undergirding the Excited Utterance exception: The essence of the excited utterance exception is the inability of the declarant to have reflected on the events abo

2023(Emphasis supplied.) As Maryland, and the nation at large, emerged from a long period of explaining exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay by the now superseded and awkward concept of res gestae, the first significant opinion of the Maryland Supreme Court to refer to the Excited Utterance exception directly with that terminology was Mouzone v. State, 294 Md. 19 692 , 452 A.2d 661 (1982).6 Judge Cole explained the generative rationale undergirding the Excited Utterance exception: The essence of the excited utterance exception is the inability of the declarant to have reflected on the events abo

1991See Moore v. State, 26 Md.App. 556, 566 , 338 A.2d 344, 349 (1975) for a list of cases upholding the use of the excited utterance exception.

1991See Moore v. State, 26 Md.App. 556, 566 , 338 A.2d 344, 349 (1975) for a list of cases upholding the use of the excited utterance exception.

2013In Parker v. State, 365 Md. 299 , 778 A.2d 1096 (2001), we noted that when introducing a hearsay statement under the excited utterance exception, “[t]he proponent of a statement purporting to fall within the excited utterance exception must establish the foundation for admissibility, namely personal knowledge and spontaneity.” 365 Md. at 313 , 778 A.2d at 1104 .

2013In Parker v. State, 365 Md. 299 , 778 A.2d 1096 (2001), we noted that when introducing a hearsay statement under the excited utterance exception, “[t]he proponent of a statement purporting to fall within the excited utterance exception must establish the foundation for admissibility, namely personal knowledge and spontaneity.” 365 Md. at 313 , 778 A.2d at 1104 .

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even

1993Appellant alleged that “under the so-called excited utterance rule such utterances are admissible only and narrowly to explain the exciting occurrence and for no other purpose.” Id. at 510.

2023In Stanley v. State, the defense objected to admission of statements made by the victim of a battery under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule where the “record did not disclose with specificity the amount of time that elapsed between the alleged attack and her statements” to the officer riding in the ambulance with her. 118 Md.

2001Stanley v. State, 118 Md.

2023In Harmony v. State, we explained that the temporal limitations of the excited utterance exception may vary even further depending on the evolving nature of the startling event. 88 Md.

2003See Harmony v. State, 88 Md.App. 306, 321 , 594 A.2d 1182 (1991) (qualifying as a prompt complaint a statement made by the victim three hours after a sexual assault) (citations omitted).

2013Additionally, we note that when determining “the admissibility or rejection of ‘excited utterance’ testimony!!,]” we apply “a case by case analysis.” Johnson v. State, 63 Md.App. 485, 493 , 492 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1985).

2013Additionally, we note that when determining “the admissibility or rejection of ‘excited utterance’ testimony!!,]” we apply “a case by case analysis.” Johnson v. State, 63 Md.App. 485, 493 , 492 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1985).

2024Ct. App. 2024) (text messages between victim and friend within hour and a half after incident were admissible under excited utterance exception in prosecution for rape because the fact that victim was pleading for help and told friend that she did not know what to do indicated she was still under the stress and excitement caused by the event when she sent the text messages); State v. Swing, 98 N.E.3d 828, 849 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (text messages sent by victim to friend describing alleged sexual assault by defendant, who was in the same car as victim at the time of sending the messages, fell wi

2024See Harrell, 348 Md. at 77 ; accord Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d at 447 ; see also, e.g., Green v. State, 81 Md.

2024“The rationale behind the excited utterance exception is that the startling event suspends the declarant’s process of reflective thought, thereby reducing the likelihood of fabrication.” Davis v. State, 125 Md.

2024See Harrell, 348 Md. at 77 ; accord Mulgrave, 33 N.E.3d at 447 ; see also, e.g., Green v. State, 81 Md.

2023App. at 320 , to support the proposition that under the excited utterance exception, “the declarant must still be in the throes of the exciting event when he or she makes the out-of-court assertion in issue”); Vigna v. State, 241 Md.

2010Co., 636 F.Supp.2d 916, 922 (D.Neb.2009) (stating that the definition of “relating to” was not so narrow as to require that two subjects be identical); Contractors Ass’n v. West Va. Dep’t of Pub.

2002See Foreman v. State, 125 Md.App. 28, 34 , 723 A.2d 912 (1999). 8 .

2002See Foreman v. State, 125 Md.App. 28, 34 , 723 A.2d 912 (1999). 8 .

2001See also United States v. Mitchell, 145 F.3d 572 (3rd Cir.1998).

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even

1997Compare People v. Burton, 433 Mich. 268 , 445 N.W.2d 133, 138 (1989) (noting a third requirement that the statement “ ‘must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion’” in order for the excited utterance exception to apply) (quoting People v. Gee, 406 Mich. 279 , 278 N.W.2d 304, 305 (1979)) and State v. Terry, 10 Wash.App. 874 , 520 P.2d 1397, 1401 (1974)(noting that the statement must relate to the “main event,” or the subject of the lawsuit) with Murphy Auto Parts Co. v. Ball, 249 F.2d 508 , 511 (D.C.Cir.1957) (noting that “ ‘the relationship of the statement to the starling [even