Rule 803 - Hearsay Exceptions

803(1) - 803(5) Availability of declarant immaterial.

FRE 803 establishes multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule. These exceptions operate independently of whether the person who made the original statement is available to testify in court, distinguishing them from Rule 804 exceptions that only apply when the declarant cannot testify. The Rule 803 exceptions are based on the principle that certain statements carry built-in reliability indicators that make them trustworthy enough to admit into evidence, despite their hearsay nature.

Let’s delve into these now.

Present Sense Impression -Rule 803(1)

A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

Present sense impressions gain their reliability from the closeness in time between making of the out-of-court statement and the occurrence of the event described or explained. The nigh simultaneousness of the event and the statement negate the likelihood of deliberation or conscious misrepresentation.

The only guarantee of reliability for this exception is contemporaneousness, the event and the statement must be extremely close in time. Even a brief reflective period may destroy the spontaneity required.

The statement is admissible for the truth of the occurrence that it describes, and the admissibility of the statement is limited to so much of the statement as describes the event or condition perceived by the declarant.

The elements of 803(1) are:

• A statement that describes an event or condition; and

• a closeness in time to the event or condition described.

  • Must be while it is occurring or immediately thereafter.

The reason the courts would likely admit this statement over any hearsay objection is the absence of time the speaker had to deliberate and therefore fabricate their statement. They saw the car run the light and cried out.

---

Excited Utterance Rule 803(2) -

An excited utterance is a spontaneous out-of-court statement which related to a startling event and which is made while the declarant is under the stress or excitement caused by the event.

When something shocking or surprising happens, people sometimes blurt out statements without thinking. These spontaneous reactions are considered more trustworthy because the person was so caught off guard that they didn't have time to think up a lie or twist the truth to benefit themselves.

For a statement to count as this type of reliable "excited utterance," the event that caused it must have been startling enough that the person reacted instinctively, without having a chance to carefully consider what they were saying or how it might affect them.

Basically, the idea is that when people are truly surprised or shocked, they're more likely to tell the truth because they haven't had time to come up with a lie.

In order to demonstrate that a statement falls within Rule 803(2) and prior to offering the statement itself into evidence, the proponent of the statement must lay a foundation for the context of the statement which shows:

• the startling event and

• the statement's connection to that event.

Unlike present sense impressions, an excited utterance doesn't have to occur at the exact same time as the event. The statement can happen later, as long as the person was still emotionally shaken up or stressed from the shocking event when they made the statement.

In other words, if someone witnesses a car crash, they don't have to make their statement right at the moment of impact. They could make it minutes or even hours later, and it would still count as an excited utterance - as long as they were still clearly affected by the trauma or shock of what they saw when they spoke.

The key point to the excited utterance exception to hearsay is that the person is still operating under the stress of that original startling event, and therefore the declarant is less likely to be able to lie.

For example, imagine someone gets hurt in a shocking accident and passes out. When they wake up and immediately blurt out something about what happened to them, that statement could still count as an excited utterance. Even though time has passed while they were unconscious, they're still considered to be reacting under the stress of that original traumatic event.

So if someone gets hit by a car, loses consciousness, and then wakes up in the hospital saying "That red truck ran right through the stop sign!" - that statement could still be treated as reliable because they're still emotionally affected by the accident, even though they weren't conscious for a period of time in between.

The unconsciousness doesn't reset the clock - if they're still clearly shaken up from the original event when they regain consciousness, their spontaneous statement can still qualify.

The exception has also been found to be available in a circumstance where a sufficiently startling event occurs and the excitement continues until the declarant has an opportunity to report the event to another person. As a general rule, however, the passage of time between the event and the statement will be given strong consideration because necessarily, over time, excitement wears off and reflection takes its place.

This exception can also apply when something shocking happens and the person stays emotionally worked up until they get a chance to tell someone else about it. So if someone witnesses a terrible accident but doesn't have anyone to tell right away, their statement could still count as an excited utterance when they finally do get to report it - as long as they were still clearly shaken up the whole time.

However, time is a factor that courts will carefully consider. The longer the gap between when something happens and when the person makes their statement, the less likely it is to qualify. This makes sense because as time passes, people naturally calm down from their initial shock and start thinking more clearly - which means they have more opportunity to reflect and potentially lie.