excited utterance exception in Minnesota

2025Edwards, 485 N.W.2d at 914 ; Berrisford, 361 N.W.2d at 850 .

2006See Oliver, 502 N.W.2d at 778-79 (holding defendant had “no ground for complaint about” admission of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a recanting witness because the statement was admissible substantively under the residual exception); Edwards, 485 N.W.2d at 915 (holding even if the district court was correct that the extrajudicial statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception, it abused its discretion in excluding them because they were admissible under the residual exception).

2016State v. Daniels, 380 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 1986).

2016“The rationale [for the excited- utterance exception] stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” State v. Daniels, 380 N.W.2d 777, 782 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted).

2025The district court analogized to Bauer, a case in which the excited-utterance exception applied to a declarant who was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid.” 598 N.W.2d at 366 .

2016The supreme court has held that a statement falls within the excited-utterance exception when a witness testifies that the declarant was “very upset, extremely agitated, and very afraid.” State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 366 (Minn. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).

2025Id. at 438; see also State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214, 224 (Minn. 2000) (concluding that the district court acted within its discretion by determining that a statement did not qualify as an excited utterance when the statement was given “many hours after the startling event” and there was no evidence of excitement).

2015State v. Martin, 614 N.W.2d 214, 223-24 (Minn. 2000) (quotations omitted); see, e.g., State v. Bauer, 598 N.W.2d 352, 366 (Minn. 1999) (holding that a statement fell within the excited-utterance exception when a witness testified that the declarant was “very upset,” “extremely agitated,” and “very afraid”).

2016“For a statement to be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, there must have been a startling event or condition, the statement must relate to the event or condition, and the statement must be made under the stress caused by the event or condition.” State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn. 2000) overruled on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 1245 S. Ct. 1354 (2004).

2004Id. at 1363-67 .

2016See 650 N.W.2d at 183 (“We agree with appellant that testimony to the effect that the police had received a tip from a ‘reliable source’ who said that appellant was suspected of possessing and ‘was carrying—transporting drugs’ in his car was inadmissible hearsay.”).

2016“For a statement to be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, there must have been a startling event or condition, the statement must relate to the event or condition, and the statement must be made under the stress caused by the event or condition.” State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn. 2000) overruled on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 1245 S. Ct. 1354 (2004).

2006See Oliver, 502 N.W.2d at 778-79 (holding defendant had “no ground for complaint about” admission of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a recanting witness because the statement was admissible substantively under the residual exception); Edwards, 485 N.W.2d at 915 (holding even if the district court was correct that the extrajudicial statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception, it abused its discretion in excluding them because they were admissible under the residual exception).

2006See Oliver, 502 N.W.2d at 778-79 (holding defendant had "no ground for complaint about" admission of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach a recanting witness because the statement was admissible substantively under the residual exception); Edwards, 485 *410 N.W.2d at 915 (holding even if the district court was correct that the extrajudicial statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception, it abused its discretion in excluding them because they were admissible under the residual exception).

2005Wright, 686 N.W.2d at 309 (J.

1988Cf. State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 583-84 (Minn.1980).

1986See, e.g., State v. Alton, 105 Minn. 410 , 117 N.W. 617 (1908); State v. Williams, 96 Minn. 351 , 105 N.W. 265 (1905).

1986See, e.g., State v. Alton, 105 Minn. 410 , 117 N.W. 617 (1908); State v. Williams, 96 Minn. 351 , 105 N.W. 265 (1905).

1986Compare McLaughlin v. Vinzant, 522 F.2d 448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1037 , 96 S.Ct. 573 , 46 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975) (excited utterance withstood confrontation cause challenge) with State v. Butcher, 120 Ariz. 234 , 585 P.2d 254 (Ariz.App.1978) (victim’s out-of-court statements, though properly falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, had insufficient other indicia of *786 reliability to be admitted against a confrontation clause challenge). 11 .

1986Compare McLaughlin v. Vinzant, 522 F.2d 448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1037 , 96 S.Ct. 573 , 46 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975) (excited utterance withstood confrontation cause challenge) with State v. Butcher, 120 Ariz. 234 , 585 P.2d 254 (Ariz.App.1978) (victim’s out-of-court statements, though properly falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, had insufficient other indicia of *786 reliability to be admitted against a confrontation clause challenge). 11 .

1986Compare McLaughlin v. Vinzant, 522 F.2d 448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1037 , 96 S.Ct. 573 , 46 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975) (excited utterance withstood confrontation cause challenge) with State v. Butcher, 120 Ariz. 234 , 585 P.2d 254 (Ariz.App.1978) (victim’s out-of-court statements, though properly falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, had insufficient other indicia of *786 reliability to be admitted against a confrontation clause challenge). 11 .

1986Whether a statement may be admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule “rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Taylor, 258 N.W.2d 615, 621 (Minn.1977).

1986Compare McLaughlin v. Vinzant, 522 F.2d 448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1037 , 96 S.Ct. 573 , 46 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975) (excited utterance withstood confrontation cause challenge) with State v. Butcher, 120 Ariz. 234 , 585 P.2d 254 (Ariz.App.1978) (victim’s out-of-court statements, though properly falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, had insufficient other indicia of *786 reliability to be admitted against a confrontation clause challenge). 11 .

1986Compare McLaughlin v. Vinzant, 522 F.2d 448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1037 , 96 S.Ct. 573 , 46 L.Ed.2d 412 (1975) (excited utterance withstood confrontation cause challenge) with State v. Butcher, 120 Ariz. 234 , 585 P.2d 254 (Ariz.App.1978) (victim’s out-of-court statements, though properly falling within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, had insufficient other indicia of *786 reliability to be admitted against a confrontation clause challenge). 11 .