Which statement best describes the Excited Utterance exception to the hearsay rule?

Which statement best describes the Excited Utterance exception to the hearsay rule?

• A. Statement about what a person said while that person was in an excited state.
• B. Statement about a person’s present mental state not connected to a startling event.
• C. Statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted after calm reflection.
• D. Statement that is hearsay but allowed for party opponents.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a statement made about a startling event while the speaker is still under the stress of that event is allowed despite hearsay. An excited utterance can be admitted because the excitement from the event tends to suppress deliberate lying or misstatements and the statement is typically spontaneous and not the product of calm reflection. The correct option captures this: a statement about what a person said while that person was in an excited state—made soon after a startling event and while still under its emotional influence. Why the other ideas don’t fit: a statement about a person’s present mental state not tied to a startling event misses the required link to a startling event and the excitement condition. A statement offered after calm reflection contradicts the spontaneity the rule relies on. And a general note about hearsay and party opponents describes a different area of evidence (nonhearsay admissions by party opponents) rather than the excited utterance exception.

The key idea is that a statement made about a startling event while the speaker is still under the stress of that event is allowed despite hearsay. An excited utterance can be admitted because the excitement from the event tends to suppress deliberate lying or misstatements and the statement is typically spontaneous and not the product of calm reflection. The correct option captures this: a statement about what a person said while that person was in an excited state—made soon after a startling event and while still under its emotional influence.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: a statement about a person’s present mental state not tied to a startling event misses the required link to a startling event and the excitement condition. A statement offered after calm reflection contradicts the spontaneity the rule relies on. And a general note about hearsay and party opponents describes a different area of evidence (nonhearsay admissions by party opponents) rather than the excited utterance exception.