excited utterance exception in North Carolina

2025The excited utterance exception requires: “(1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.” State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985) (citation omitted).

2025The excited utterance exception requires: “(1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.” State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985) (citation omitted).

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2014We hold the statements are hearsay, but that they fit within the excited utterance exception pursuant to this Court’s decisions in State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.

2007See, e.g., State v. Burgess, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 639 S.E.2d 68, 75 (2007) ("In the present case, fewer than twenty-four hours had elapsed between the time S.P. *585 yelled at [the child], the sexual assault, and [the child's] statements to her mother."); Boczkowski, 130 N.C.App. at 709-10 , 504 S.E.2d at 801 (holding excited utterance exception applied when nine-year-old's mother died in early morning hours and she made statements to neighbor approximately seven to eight hours later that day); State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.App. 491, 501 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 226 ("Thus, statements made by young chil

2004For a statement to fall under this excited utterance exception, “ ‘there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.’ ” State v. Maness, 321 N.C. 454, 459 , 364 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1988) (quoting State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985)). *155 Evidence presented at trial established that after wrestling with defendant at 13 Ridge Street, Cato fled to Rick’s house, seeking help.

2004For a statement to fall under this excited utterance exception, “ ‘there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.’ ” State v. Maness, 321 N.C. 454, 459 , 364 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1988) (quoting State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985)). *155 Evidence presented at trial established that after wrestling with defendant at 13 Ridge Street, Cato fled to Rick’s house, seeking help.

2000State v. Thomas, 119 N.C.App. 708 , 460 S.E.2d 349 (1995) (child's statement regarding child's sexual abuse admissible as excited utterance when made four to five days after the startling event); State v. Jones, 89 N.C.App. 584 , 367 S.E.2d 139 (1988) (child's statement to mother regarding sexual abuse made ten hours after leaving defendant's custody held admissible as excited utterance).

2000See State v. Jones, 89 N.C.

2000In order for a statement to fall within the parameters of the excited utterance exception of Rule 803(2), “ ‘there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.’ ” State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628, 644 , *201 488 S.E.2d 162, 171 (1997) (quoting State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985)).

2000In order for a statement to fall within the parameters of the excited utterance exception of Rule 803(2), “ ‘there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.’ ” State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628, 644 , *201 488 S.E.2d 162, 171 (1997) (quoting State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985)).

2007See, e.g., State v. Burgess, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 639 S.E.2d 68, 75 (2007) ("In the present case, fewer than twenty-four hours had elapsed between the time S.P. *585 yelled at [the child], the sexual assault, and [the child's] statements to her mother."); Boczkowski, 130 N.C.App. at 709-10 , 504 S.E.2d at 801 (holding excited utterance exception applied when nine-year-old's mother died in early morning hours and she made statements to neighbor approximately seven to eight hours later that day); State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.App. 491, 501 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 226 ("Thus, statements made by young chil

2007See, e.g., State v. Burgess, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 639 S.E.2d 68, 75 (2007) ("In the present case, fewer than twenty-four hours had elapsed between the time S.P. *585 yelled at [the child], the sexual assault, and [the child's] statements to her mother."); Boczkowski, 130 N.C.App. at 709-10 , 504 S.E.2d at 801 (holding excited utterance exception applied when nine-year-old's mother died in early morning hours and she made statements to neighbor approximately seven to eight hours later that day); State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.App. 491, 501 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 226 ("Thus, statements made by young chil

2007See, e.g., State v. Burgess, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 639 S.E.2d 68, 75 (2007) ("In the present case, fewer than twenty-four hours had elapsed between the time S.P. *585 yelled at [the child], the sexual assault, and [the child's] statements to her mother."); Boczkowski, 130 N.C.App. at 709-10 , 504 S.E.2d at 801 (holding excited utterance exception applied when nine-year-old's mother died in early morning hours and she made statements to neighbor approximately seven to eight hours later that day); State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.App. 491, 501 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 226 ("Thus, statements made by young chil

2007See, e.g., State v. Burgess, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 639 S.E.2d 68 , 75 (2007) ("In the present case, fewer than twenty-four hours had elapsed between the time S.P. *585 yelled at [the child], the sexual assault, and [the child's] statements to her mother."); Boczkowski, 130 N.C.App. at 709 -10 , 504 S.E.2d at 801 (holding excited utterance exception applied when nine-year-old's mother died in early morning hours and she made statements to neighbor approximately seven to eight hours later that day); State v. Rogers, 109 N.C.App. 491 , 501, 428 S.E.2d 220 , 226 ("Thus, statements made by young c

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2001See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 (testimony of officers that victim, after being shot, stated, “Tell Hilda that I love her,” “Am I going to die?” and “I’m going to die,” fit within excited utterance exception to hearsay rule and were admissible at trial), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 139 L.

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

1995Finally, we note that the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule is a codification of the common law exception of “spontaneous utterance.” Wingard, 317 N.C. at 598 , 346 S.E.2d at 644 (citation omitted).

1995Finally, we note that the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule is a codification of the common law exception of “spontaneous utterance.” Wingard, 317 N.C. at 598 , 346 S.E.2d at 644 (citation omitted).

2014App. 491, 501 , 428 S.E.2d 220, 226 , cert. denied, 334 N.C. 625 , 435 S.E.2d 348 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1008 (1994), and State v. Thomas, 119 N.C.

2002The trial court in that case: [Specifically found that A.’s statement to L. and B. was a spontaneous response to their questions, made while A. was under “obvious distress” precipitated by events which occurred “within a four to five day period at most.” Reasoning that a child of five “is characteristic [ally] free of conscious fabrication for longer periods [of time] including . . . four or five days, the court concluded that A.’s assertions to L. and B. fell within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.” State v. Thomas, 119 N.C.

2025It is well established that “[w]hether a statement is an excited utterance is determined by the state of mind of the speaker.” State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 417 , 683 S.E.2d 174, 195 (2009) (citation omitted and emphasis added).

2025It is well established that “[w]hether a statement is an excited utterance is determined by the state of mind of the speaker.” State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 417 , 683 S.E.2d 174, 195 (2009) (citation omitted and emphasis added).

2024See id. at 35 , 558 S.E.2d at 133 ; see also Clapp, 235 N.C.

2024See id. at 35 , 558 S.E.2d at 133 ; see also Clapp, 235 N.C.

2024In State v. Allen, this Court assessed whether witness statements given twenty minutes after a shooting were properly admitted into evidence under the excited utterance exception. 162 N.C.

2024App. 587, 593 , 592 S.E.2d 31, 37 (2004).

2024See id. at 35 , 558 S.E.2d at 133 ; see also Clapp, 235 N.C.

2010The rationale behind the excited utterance exception is that "circumstances may produce a condition of excitement which temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces `spontaneous and sincere' utterances." State v. Reid, 335 N.C. 647, 662 , 440 S.E.2d 776, 784 (1994) (quoting 6 John H.

2010The rationale behind the excited utterance exception is that "circumstances may produce a condition of excitement which temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces `spontaneous and sincere' utterances." State v. Reid, 335 N.C. 647, 662 , 440 S.E.2d 776, 784 (1994) (quoting 6 John H.

2004See State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 672 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 411 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 900 , 118 S.Ct. 248 , 139 L.Ed.2d. 177 (1997) (holding that statements made by a victim to police officers after she was shot were admissible under the "excited utterance" exception as they described the circumstances surrounding the shooting and immediately followed the shooting); State v. Wright, 151 N.C.App. 493, 496-497 , 566 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2002) (holding that statements made by victim in response to questions asked by 911 operator were excited utterances); Coria, 131 N.C.App. at 451 , 508 S.E.2d at 3 (

2002Rule 803(2) provides for the admission of an otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” To be admissible under the excited utterance exception, “there must be (1) a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought and (2) a spontaneous reaction, not one resulting from reflection or fabrication.” State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 , 337 S.E.2d 833, 841 (1985). “ ‘[T]he modem trend is to consider whether the delay in making the statement provided an

2002App. 541 , 551 S.E.2d 516 (2001).

2002When hearsay evidence comes within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, unlike the “residual” or “catchall” exception of 803(24), “the Confrontation Clause of the North Carolina Constitution is not violated, even though no particularized showing is made as to the necessity for using such hearsay or as to its reliability or trustworthiness.” State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 654 , 503 S.E.2d 101, 107 (1998).

2002When hearsay evidence comes within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, unlike the “residual” or “catchall” exception of 803(24), “the Confrontation Clause of the North Carolina Constitution is not violated, even though no particularized showing is made as to the necessity for using such hearsay or as to its reliability or trustworthiness.” State v. Jackson, 348 N.C. 644, 654 , 503 S.E.2d 101, 107 (1998).