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.
On this page
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.
IRAC analysis
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…
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.