🦅
Federal Evidence • Hearsay Exceptions - Unavailability NOT Required
EVID#048
Legal Definition
This is the California version of excited utterance, and is the same rule: Statements made while under the stress of the excitement of a startling event, explaining or describing the event.
It doesn't matter whether the witness is available or not.
It doesn't matter whether the witness is available or not.
Plain English Explanation
The excited "spontaneous statement" exception (which is basically identical to the Federal Rules' "excited utterance" exception) allows statements made by someone who is still upset or startled by a recent event to be used as evidence, even if the person who made the statement is not available to testify in court.
The purpose of the spontaneous statement exception is to allow statements made in the heat of the moment, while a person is still feeling the effects of a startling event, to be used as evidence even if that person can't later testify in court. The reasoning is that a person is less likely to make up or lie about something when they are upset or startled, so their initial statements can be trusted. This exception allows these truthful initial statements to be used in court proceedings when the person who made them can't testify for some reason. It provides a way for initial reactions to an event to be considered as evidence, instead of being lost if the person becomes unavailable.
You may be wondering, "Wait a minute, what is the difference between this and contemporaneous statements??" They are very similar, but it comes down to timing and emotion. A contemporaneous statement is simply a statement made either during or fairly soon after something is personally witnessed. In contrast, a spontaneous statement is a statement made immediately reacting to the thing that has startled or shocked the witness. In other words, if someone sees a car crash into another car and says, "Oh my, I hope no one got hurt. Looks like that blue car just ran into that red car. I should probably call the police." This would be a contemporaneous statement but not really an spontaneous statement. A spontaneous statement would be something more like, "Holy shit! Did you see that blue car just bash into the red car?!?"
The purpose of the spontaneous statement exception is to allow statements made in the heat of the moment, while a person is still feeling the effects of a startling event, to be used as evidence even if that person can't later testify in court. The reasoning is that a person is less likely to make up or lie about something when they are upset or startled, so their initial statements can be trusted. This exception allows these truthful initial statements to be used in court proceedings when the person who made them can't testify for some reason. It provides a way for initial reactions to an event to be considered as evidence, instead of being lost if the person becomes unavailable.
You may be wondering, "Wait a minute, what is the difference between this and contemporaneous statements??" They are very similar, but it comes down to timing and emotion. A contemporaneous statement is simply a statement made either during or fairly soon after something is personally witnessed. In contrast, a spontaneous statement is a statement made immediately reacting to the thing that has startled or shocked the witness. In other words, if someone sees a car crash into another car and says, "Oh my, I hope no one got hurt. Looks like that blue car just ran into that red car. I should probably call the police." This would be a contemporaneous statement but not really an spontaneous statement. A spontaneous statement would be something more like, "Holy shit! Did you see that blue car just bash into the red car?!?"
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob witnesses a car accident involving Sam. Immediately after the crash, Bob exclaims, ""That car ran the red light and hit Sam!"" Result: Bob's statement is an spontaneous statement. It's a spontaneous reaction to the surprising and stressful situation of witnessing the accident. The statement can be used in court as evidence, even if Bob isn't there.
Hypo 2: During a robbery, Sam sees Bob, the robber, and shouts, ""He's got a gun!"" right as Bob enters the store. Result: Sam's exclamation is considered an spontaneous statement. It's made in response to the immediate and startling event of seeing a robber with a gun. This statement can be presented in court as evidence of the robbery, regardless of Sam's presence.
Hypo 3: Bob and Sam are at a park when a firework unexpectedly goes off nearby. Startled, Sam yells, ""That firework just came from the Johnsons' backyard!"" Result: Sam's statement is an spontaneous statement, made in reaction to the sudden and startling event of the unexpected firework. This statement could be used in court to identify where the firework came from, even if Sam isn’t there to testify.
Hypo 5: A week after witnessing a car accident, Bob tells his friend, ""I think the blue car ran the red light and hit the other car."" Result: This statement by Bob is not a spontaneous statement. It's made a week after the event, so it's not a spontaneous reaction to a startling incident. Therefore, it cannot be used under the excited utterance rule in court.
Hypo 2: During a robbery, Sam sees Bob, the robber, and shouts, ""He's got a gun!"" right as Bob enters the store. Result: Sam's exclamation is considered an spontaneous statement. It's made in response to the immediate and startling event of seeing a robber with a gun. This statement can be presented in court as evidence of the robbery, regardless of Sam's presence.
Hypo 3: Bob and Sam are at a park when a firework unexpectedly goes off nearby. Startled, Sam yells, ""That firework just came from the Johnsons' backyard!"" Result: Sam's statement is an spontaneous statement, made in reaction to the sudden and startling event of the unexpected firework. This statement could be used in court to identify where the firework came from, even if Sam isn’t there to testify.
Hypo 5: A week after witnessing a car accident, Bob tells his friend, ""I think the blue car ran the red light and hit the other car."" Result: This statement by Bob is not a spontaneous statement. It's made a week after the event, so it's not a spontaneous reaction to a startling incident. Therefore, it cannot be used under the excited utterance rule in court.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
In California, how does the ancient documents hearsay exception differ?
In California, how does the judgments of conviction hearsay exception differ?
In California, how does the learned treatises hearsay exception differ?
In California, how does the official and public records hearsay exception differ?
In California, what is the contemporaneous statements hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the ancient documents hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the business records hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the excited utterance hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the family records hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the judgments of conviction hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the learned treatises hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the market reports hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the official and public records hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the past physical or mental condition hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the past recorded recollection hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the present physical or mental condition hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the present sense impression hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the present state of mind hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the property records hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
What is the vital records hearsay exception, and does it require the witness to be available?
