Evidence sample analysis
MBE Evidence Hearsay Exception Sample Question + Ruling
Study a fresh MBE hearsay exception problem focused on excited utterances, with a ruling analysis, distractor notes, and a short quiz teaser.
Fact pattern
During a late-night pharmacy robbery, a masked person shoved the cashier, grabbed a bag of prescription drugs, and ran out. Less than a minute later, while shaking and crying, the cashier told Officer Reed, "It was the tall mechanic from the garage next door. I recognized his voice and the dragon tattoo on his wrist." At trial, the cashier testified but could no longer remember the robber's identity. The prosecution offered Officer Reed's account of the cashier's statement, and the defense objected on hearsay grounds.
Quick answer
Officer Reed's testimony about the cashier's statement is likely admissible as an excited utterance because it was made almost immediately after the robbery while the cashier was still under the stress of the event. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), a statement relating to a startling event or condition is admissible if the declarant made it while under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The rationale is that the excitement reduces the chance of calculated fabrication. Courts look at timing, the declarant's condition, and whether the statement was a reaction to the event rather than a calm narrative assembled after reflection.
Canonical URL: https://www.barprepplay.com/mbe/evidence/hearsay-excited-utterance/
IRAC model answer
Is the cashier's statement to Officer Reed admissible as an excited utterance, or is it inadmissible hearsay?
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), a statement relating to a startling event or condition is admissible if the declarant made it while under the stress of excitement caused by the event. The rationale is that the excitement reduces the chance of calculated fabrication. Courts look at timing, the declarant's condition, and whether the statement was a reaction to the event rather than a calm narrative assembled after reflection.
The robbery is plainly a startling event, and the statement directly related to that event because the cashier identified the robber. The timing is favorable to admissibility: Officer Reed heard the statement less than a minute after the robbery. Just as important, the cashier was still visibly shaking and crying, which strongly suggests the stress of the event had not dissipated. Those facts support the prosecution's argument that the statement was spontaneous rather than reflective. The defense can respond that the statement contained a fairly detailed identification, including both a voice recognition and a tattoo reference, and that detail may imply some level of thought. But detail alone does not defeat the exception. A stressed declarant can still blurt out identifying features if those details were perceived during the event and spoken while the stress remained intense. Because the cashier later forgot the identity at trial, Officer Reed's testimony matters, but the memory failure does not block the exception. The key question is the cashier's state at the moment of the original statement, not the cashier's later recollection.
Officer Reed's testimony about the cashier's statement is likely admissible as an excited utterance because it was made almost immediately after the robbery while the cashier was still under the stress of the event.
Numbered reasoning steps
- Define hearsay before jumping to the exception.
- Identify the startling event and show how the statement relates to it.
- Use timing and the declarant's emotional condition to test spontaneity.
- Explain why detail in the statement does not automatically destroy the exception.
- Keep later memory loss separate from the admissibility of the original statement.
Why wrong answers fail
The content of the statement does not bar the exception if it was made while the declarant was still under the event's stress.
Present sense impression is a different theory. The stronger fit here is excited utterance because the declarant was visibly upset after a startling event.
Availability is not required for Rule 803(2). The exception applies whether or not the declarant later testifies.
A brief question does not automatically destroy spontaneity if the declarant is still under the stress of the event.
Issue-spotting checklist
- Start by identifying the statement's hearsay use.
- Ask whether the triggering event was startling enough to produce stress.
- Look at timing, physical condition, and emotional tone together.
- Do not confuse excited utterance with present sense impression.
- State why the statement was or was not the product of reflective thought.
Primary law and source anchors
- Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) Definition of hearsay.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) Excited utterance exception for statements made under the stress of a startling event.
- United States v. Arnold, 486 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2007) The excited-utterance inquiry focuses on whether the declarant was still dominated by the event rather than by reflection.