Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Heflin v. Stategreen2 sentences2005However, because "this Court has not allowed the admission of an excited utterance exception when the time frame was more than twenty-four hours," Smith, 733 So.2d at 798 , citing Heflin v. State, 643 So.2d 512, 519 (Miss.1994), the trial court abused its discretion in finding the testimony qualified as an excited utterance. ¶ 23. 2001However, because “this Court has not allowed the admission of an excited utterance exception when the time frame was more than twenty-four hours,” Smith, 733 So. 2d at 798 , citing Heflin v. State, 643 So. 2d 512, 519 (Miss. 1994), the trial court abused its discretion in finding the testimony qualified as an excited utterance. ¶23. | 4 | 4 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Ct. App. 2013). "[U]nder the excited utterance exception the fact that questions are asked, while relevant to spontaneity, does not ipso facto demonstrate a lack of spontaneity in every case." Sanders v. State , 586 So.2d 792 , 795 (Miss. 1991). 2001In Sanders v. State, 586 So.2d 792, 795 (Miss.1991), the court stated: However, under the excited utterance exception the fact that questions are asked, while relevant to spontaneity, does not ipso facto demonstrate a lack of spontaneity in every case. | 3 | 4 |
Baine v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1079 (Miss.1992). 2002Baine v. State, 606 So.2d 1076, 1079 (Miss.1992). | 3 | 3 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Although the excited utterance exception "sets no specific time limit, nevertheless, under our precedent case law, this Court has not allowed the admission of an excited utterance exception when the time frame was more than twenty-four hours." Smith v. State, 733 So.2d 793, 798 (Miss. 1999). 2005However, because "this Court has not allowed the admission of an excited utterance exception when the time frame was more than twenty-four hours," Smith, 733 So.2d at 798 , citing Heflin v. State, 643 So.2d 512, 519 (Miss.1994), the trial court abused its discretion in finding the testimony qualified as an excited utterance. ¶ 23. | 2 | 2 |
Clark v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Mississippi Supreme Court in Clark held that the transcript of the 911 call also fell within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule “since it relates to the events that were unfolding as it was made, it was made while Meunier [the victim] was in an excited state, and it was made contemporaneously with the event.” Id. 1999The "reliability of an excited utterance is based on the premise that circumstances may place the declarant in such an excited state as to temporarily impede the capacity for reflection." Owens v. State, 716 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927, 932 (Miss.1997)). | 1 | 2 |
Bankston v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“There is no hard and fast rule regarding the interval of time passing between an event and a statement before the remark is classified as outside the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 969-70 (¶8). 2023“The rationale for this exception is that one caught in a sudden, startling event lacks the capacity for calm reflection, tending to make such statements reliable.” Id. at 969 (¶7). ¶26. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Smith v. State, 25 So. 3d 264, 273-74 (¶28) (Miss. 2009) (finding that although the trial court erred in admitting a statement into evidence on one ground, the evidence was otherwise admissible under a different ground). | 1 | 1 |
Barnett v. Stategreen1 sentence2022However, “[t]here is no hard and fast rule regarding the interval of time that passes between an event and an utterance before the remark necessarily must be classified as outside the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.” Barnett v. State, 757 So. 2d 323, 329 (¶17) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Eubanks v. Stategreen1 sentence2011However, this Court has held that “where the excited utterance is prompted by a simple question, even from an officer, such as ‘What happened?’ or ‘What’s wrong?’ it may still fall under the exception.” Eubanks v. State, 28 So.3d 607, 611 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Id. at 698 (¶ 22). 2007Id. at 698 (¶ 22). | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Griffith v. State, 584 So.2d 383, 386 (Miss. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence1999The "reliability of an excited utterance is based on the premise that circumstances may place the declarant in such an excited state as to temporarily impede the capacity for reflection." Owens v. State, 716 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Clark v. State, 693 So.2d 927, 932 (Miss.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barron v. State
green
1 sentence2018The State responds that the trial court correctly allowed the testimony because the eyewitness statements were spontaneous. ¶ 11. " Mississippi Rule of Evidence 803(2) states that an excited utterance is 'a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.' " Barron v. State , 130 So.3d 531 , 538 (¶ 21) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cabrere v. State
green
1 sentence2014Mississippi 920 So.2d 1062 [ (Miss.Ct.App.2006) ], clearly indicates that in this particular case a radio log was admissible as a business record exception of the hearsay rule[.] Also the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a transcript of the 911 call fell under the present sense impression to the hearsay rule, as well to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Carter v. State
green
1 sentence2003Carter v. State, 722 So.2d 1258 (¶ 10) (Miss.1998) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 41 . ¶ 38. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Cunningham v. State
green
1 sentence1991This time the state cited the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule as well as the case of Cunningham v. State, 467 So.2d 902 (Miss. 1986), one of the pre-rules cases. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.