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.
20 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Underwoodgreen2 sentences2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden 2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden | 1 | 4 |
State v. Moengreen2 sentences2021See State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 65 , 786 P2d 111 (1990) (“The excited utterance exception is a firmly rooted traditional hearsay exception.”). 2021See State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 65 , 786 P2d 111 (1990) (“The excited utterance exception is a firmly rooted traditional hearsay exception.”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Iseligreen2 sentences2022See State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151, 162 , 458 P3d 653 (2020) (identifying the excited utterance exception in OEC 803(2) as one that “requires a trial court to evaluate facts proffered under the specified criteria to determine whether they are satisfied”). 2022See State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151, 162 , 458 P3d 653 (2020) (identifying the excited utterance exception in OEC 803(2) as one that “requires a trial court to evaluate facts proffered under the specified criteria to determine whether they are satisfied”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2022Cite as 369 Or 214 (2022) 251 court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusion that a state- ment is or is not an excited utterance to determine whether that ruling was an error of law.” Id. at 538; see also Cook, 340 Or at 537 (holding that a trial court’s ruling regarding whether a hearsay statement quali- fies for an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for errors of law). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hutchisongreen2 sentences2014The rationale behind the excited-utterance exception is that an event may be so startling, upsetting, or painful that it “temporarily stills [a declarant’s] capacity for reflection and produces utterances free of conscious fabrication.” 1981 Conference Committee Commentary to OEC 803(2); see also State v. Hutchison, 222 Or 533, 537 , 353 P2d 1047 (1960) (describing a similar rationale). 2014The rationale behind the excited-utterance exception is that an event may be so startling, upsetting, or painful that it “temporarily stills [a declarant’s] capacity for reflection and produces utterances free of conscious fabrication.” 1981 Conference Committee Commentary to OEC 803(2); see also State v. Hutchison, 222 Or 533, 537 , 353 P2d 1047 (1960) (describing a similar rationale). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kendrickgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Kendrick, 239 Or 512, 515-16 , 398 P2d 471 (1965) (holding that “spontaneous exclamations” fall within an exception to the hearsay rule when these criteria exist: “(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must be before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent and while reflective powers are yet in abeyance; (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence preceding it”). 2014See, e.g., State v. Kendrick, 239 Or 512, 515-16 , 398 P2d 471 (1965) (holding that “spontaneous exclamations” fall within an exception to the hearsay rule when these criteria exist: “(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must be before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent and while reflective powers are yet in abeyance; (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstances of the startling occurrence preceding it”). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1991The Supreme Court of the United States recently expressed the rationale: "The basis for the `excited utterance' exception * * * is that such statements are given under circumstances that eliminate the possibility of fabrication, coaching, or confabulation, and that therefore the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provide sufficient assurance that the statement is trustworthy *1011 and that cross-examination would be superfluous." Idaho v. Wright, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 655 (1990). [13] As is true of statements of a party opponent, the a 1991The Supreme Court of the United States recently expressed the rationale: "The basis for the `excited utterance' exception * * * is that such statements are given under circumstances that eliminate the possibility of fabrication, coaching, or confabulation, and that therefore the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provide sufficient assurance that the statement is trustworthy *1011 and that cross-examination would be superfluous." Idaho v. Wright, ____ U.S. ____, ____, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 655 (1990). [13] As is true of statements of a party opponent, the a | 1 | 1 |
Dutton v. Evansgreen2 sentences1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the 1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden 2014OEC 803(2) provides: “The following are not excluded by [OEC 802, the general rule against hearsay], even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * $ * “(2) 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.” In State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201, 215-16 , 808 P2d 1002 (1991), the Supreme Court discussed the excited utterance exception and explained that, for statements to fall within its scope, the trial court must conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that three elements are satisfied: | 10 | 1992–2026 |
State v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden 2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden | 3 | 2014–2026 |
Jeen Young Han v. California
green
1 sentence2026We review a trial court’s legal conclusion that a statement was admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception for legal error, State v. Cunningham, 337 Or 528, 544 , 99 P3d 271 (2004), cert den, 544 US 931 (2005), but whether the proponent of the statement has established the requirements of the excited utterance exception is a preliminary question of fact for the trial court under OEC 104(1), Carlson, 311 Or at 216 . “[W]e review the trial court’s factual finding that [a] statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event to determine whether eviden | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Hasson
green
2 sentences2025For example, in State v. Hasson, 153 Or App 527, 531 , 958 P2d 183 (1998), the state offered into evidence a 15-minute recording of a 9-1-1 call, the defendant objected on hearsay grounds, and the trial court admitted it under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 2025For example, in State v. Hasson, 153 Or App 527, 531 , 958 P2d 183 (1998), the state offered into evidence a 15-minute recording of a 9-1-1 call, the defendant objected on hearsay grounds, and the trial court admitted it under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Pyle
neutral
1 sentence2022After an offer of proof and arguments Cite as 321 Or App 149 (2022) 151 from both sides, the trial court indicated that it was inclined to deny defendant’s request to admit the hearsay evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. Fasching
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 369 Or 214 (2022) 251 court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusion that a state- ment is or is not an excited utterance to determine whether that ruling was an error of law.” Id. at 538; see also Cook, 340 Or at 537 (holding that a trial court’s ruling regarding whether a hearsay statement quali- fies for an exception to the hearsay rule is reviewed for errors of law). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2021White, 502 US at 355 n 8 (the excited utterance exception is “at least two centu- ries old” but “may date to the late 17th century” and, as of 1992, “is currently recognized * * * in nearly four-fifths of the States”). 2021White, 502 US at 355 n 8 (the excited utterance exception is “at least two centu- ries old” but “may date to the late 17th century” and, as of 1992, “is currently recognized * * * in nearly four-fifths of the States”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence2021In fact, Wigmore explains, such statements are likely even better than live testimony because it is not pos- sible to reproduce the same conditions in the courtroom that Cite as 313 Or App 578 (2021) 583 give rise to their reliability under the exception. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kruchek
green
1 sentence2014Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence2014Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 659-60 , 20 P3d 180 (2001). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Cunningham
green
1 sentence2004Cunningham II, 184 Or App at 295 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Mayer
green
2 sentences2003See OEC 104(1); State v. Mayer, 146 Or App 86 , 932 P2d 570 (1997). 2003See OEC 104(1); State v. Mayer, 146 Or App 86 , 932 P2d 570 (1997). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Farber
green
2 sentences1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the 1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wilson v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lewis v. United States
green
1 sentence1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Campbell
green
2 sentences1987That reason is that the legislature made a conscious decision to restrict unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct by enacting OEC 803(18a) * * *." 299 Or. at 640 , 705 P.2d 694 . 1987That reason is that the legislature made a conscious decision to restrict unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct by enacting OEC 803(18a) * * *." 299 Or. at 640 , 705 P.2d 694 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hart v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
green
1 sentence1987See Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); State v. Farber, 295 Or. 199 , 666 P.2d 821 , appeal dismissed 464 U.S. 987 , 104 S.Ct. 475 , 78 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). [8] To conclude otherwise would result in an untenable situation that very young children, who are victims of child abuse and who are unable to testify because of immaturity are left to the mercy of their abusers; they may be abused in private without the abuser ever being concerned about being identified by the only witness to the crime. [1] I do not understand State v. Campbell, supra , as limiting the | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wright v. Swann
green
2 sentences1972(See § 1750, Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed.)” See also, Wright v. Swann, 261 Or 440 , 493 P2d 148 (1972), for an extended discussion of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 1972(See § 1750, Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed.)” See also, Wright v. Swann, 261 Or 440 , 493 P2d 148 (1972), for an extended discussion of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.