excited utterance exception in Michigan

2025MRE 803(2) defines an excited utterance as “[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.” The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy. [People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550 ; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citations om

2025MRE 803(2) defines an excited utterance as “[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.” The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy. [People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550 ; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citations om

2024“To come within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, a statement must meet three criteria: (1) it must arise out of a startling occasion; (2) it must be made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent; and (3) it must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion.” People v Straight, 430 Mich 418, 424 ; 424 NW2d 257 (1988) (cleaned up).

2024“To come within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, a statement must meet three criteria: (1) it must arise out of a startling occasion; (2) it must be made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent; and (3) it must relate to the circumstances of the startling occasion.” People v Straight, 430 Mich 418, 424 ; 424 NW2d 257 (1988) (cleaned up).

2020The excited utterance exception allows testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay to be admitted because “it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” People v McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635, 659 ; 672 NW2d 860 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020The excited utterance exception allows testimony that would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay to be admitted because “it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” People v McLaughlin, 258 Mich App 635, 659 ; 672 NW2d 860 (2003) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025MRE 803(2) defines an excited utterance as “[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.” The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy. [People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550 ; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citations om

2025MRE 803(2) defines an excited utterance as “[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.” The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy. [People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550 ; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citations om

2022See People v Sanders, 163 Mich App 606, 611 ; 415 NW2d 218 (1987) (“Although certain of the victim’s utterances were in response to the officer’s questioning, they were nonetheless made while the victim was under the stress of the excitement.”).

2022See People v Sanders, 163 Mich App 606, 611 ; 415 NW2d 218 (1987) (“Although certain of the victim’s utterances were in response to the officer’s questioning, they were nonetheless made while the victim was under the stress of the excitement.”).

2017The decision to admit evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and “will only be reversed where there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376, 383 ; 582 NW2d 785 (1998), abrogation on other grounds recognized by People v Knox, 256 Mich App 175, 189 ; 662 NW2d 482 (2003), rev’d 469 Mich 502, 515 (2004).

2017The decision to admit evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and “will only be reversed where there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376, 383 ; 582 NW2d 785 (1998), abrogation on other grounds recognized by People v Knox, 256 Mich App 175, 189 ; 662 NW2d 482 (2003), rev’d 469 Mich 502, 515 (2004).

2016See, e.g., People v Walker, 265 Mich App 530, 534-535 ; 697 NW2d 159 (2005), vacated in part on -2- other grounds 477 Mich 856 (2006) (finding that the victim’s statements to a neighbor were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule where the victim had escaped to safety after being beaten before making the statements).

2016See, e.g., People v Walker, 265 Mich App 530, 534-535 ; 697 NW2d 159 (2005), vacated in part on -2- other grounds 477 Mich 856 (2006) (finding that the victim’s statements to a neighbor were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule where the victim had escaped to safety after being beaten before making the statements).

2016Second, even assuming that Naso did state that his vehicle was stolen, or that the prosecution implied that Naso made the statement, that statement would have been admissible as an excited utterance under MRE 803(2), which allows introducing of an out-of-court statement if the statement is one “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” More specifically, a statement falls within the excited utterance exception if it meets the following three criteria: “(1) it must arise out of a startling occasion;

2016Second, even assuming that Naso did state that his vehicle was stolen, or that the prosecution implied that Naso made the statement, that statement would have been admissible as an excited utterance under MRE 803(2), which allows introducing of an out-of-court statement if the statement is one “relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” More specifically, a statement falls within the excited utterance exception if it meets the following three criteria: “(1) it must arise out of a startling occasion;

2007Our Supreme Court held in People v Burton, 433 Mich 268, 294-295 ; 445 NW2d 133 (1989), that a party seeking to admit hearsay statements under the excited utterance exception cannot merely rely on the purported excited utterance itself to prove that the startling event occurred.

2007Our Supreme Court held in People v Burton, 433 Mich 268, 294-295 ; 445 NW2d 133 (1989), that a party seeking to admit hearsay statements under the excited utterance exception cannot merely rely on the purported excited utterance itself to prove that the startling event occurred.

1986Our ongoing supervision over admission of statements as excited utterances is apparent in cases such as People v Creith, 151 Mich App 217 ; — NW2d — (1986); People v Pullins, 145 Mich App 414 ; 378 NW2d 502 (1985); People v Petrella, 124 Mich App 745 ; 336 NW2d 761 (1983), aff'd on other grounds 424 Mich 221 ; 380 NW2d 11 (1985); People v Carner, 117 Mich App 560 ; 324 NW2d 78 (1982).

1986Our ongoing supervision over admission of statements as excited utterances is apparent in cases such as People v Creith, 151 Mich App 217 ; — NW2d — (1986); People v Pullins, 145 Mich App 414 ; 378 NW2d 502 (1985); People v Petrella, 124 Mich App 745 ; 336 NW2d 761 (1983), aff'd on other grounds 424 Mich 221 ; 380 NW2d 11 (1985); People v Carner, 117 Mich App 560 ; 324 NW2d 78 (1982).

2021See Hendrickson, 459 Mich at 235 . -6- not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]t is the lack of capacity to fabricate, not the lack of time to fabricate, that is the focus of the excited utterance rule.” Id. at 551.

2021See Hendrickson, 459 Mich at 235 . -6- not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]t is the lack of capacity to fabricate, not the lack of time to fabricate, that is the focus of the excited utterance rule.” Id. at 551.

1996See, e.g., People v Draper, 150 Mich 481 , 486; 389 NW2d 89 (1986) (one week); People v Soles, 143 Mich App 433, 438 ; 372 NW2d 588 (1985) (five days).

1996See, e.g., People v Draper, 150 Mich 481 , 486; 389 NW2d 89 (1986) (one week); People v Soles, 143 Mich App 433, 438 ; 372 NW2d 588 (1985) (five days).

1989Of the three foundational requirements of the excited utterance exception "the requirement that the statement relate to the startling occurrence is virtually always satisfied . . . .” People v Ivory Thomas, 14 Mich App 642, 650 ; 165 NW2d 879 (1968) (Levin, J., concurring).

1989Of the three foundational requirements of the excited utterance exception "the requirement that the statement relate to the startling occurrence is virtually always satisfied . . . .” People v Ivory Thomas, 14 Mich App 642, 650 ; 165 NW2d 879 (1968) (Levin, J., concurring).

2023See People v Mateo, 453 Mich 203, 206 ; 551 NW2d 891 (1996) (“Where the error asserted is the erroneous admission of evidence, the court engages in a comparative analysis of the likely effect of the error in light of the other evidence.”).

2023See People v Mateo, 453 Mich 203, 206 ; 551 NW2d 891 (1996) (“Where the error asserted is the erroneous admission of evidence, the court engages in a comparative analysis of the likely effect of the error in light of the other evidence.”).