Admissibility of Evidence - Exceptions to the Rule against Hearsay - Present Sense Impression and Excited Utterance/Spontaneous Declaration
The present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule allow the statement as evidence of the truth contained in it.
An out of court statement is not hearsay where the mere utterance of a statement may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the person who heard it or the state of mind of the speaker,[1] or the speaker's knowledge, reason, belief, intent, or emotion at the time of the occurrence of the event. The statements are admissible for their truth to prove that the event happened. [2]
The present sense impression exception permits a court to admit the hearsay testimony of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. Spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observations are admissible if the descriptions are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Such statements may be admitted even though the declarant is not a participant in the events and is an unidentified bystander.[3]
The excited utterance exception was adopted by the Court of Appeals in People v. Caviness,[4] where the court held that a spontaneous declaration or excited utterance made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event, which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is admissible. There, a witness to a shooting was allowed to testify that immediately after the victim was shot she said "Burnis shot Earl”, as she fell to the ground. The Court described the excited utterance exception:
"Spontaneous declarations frequently referred to with some inexactitude as res gestae declarations ... form an exception to the hearsay rule. It is established that spontaneous declarations made by a participant while he is under the stress of nervous excitement resulting from an injury or another startling event, while his reflective powers are stilled and during the brief period when considerations of self-interest could not have been brought fully to bear by reasoned reflection and deliberation, are admissible as true exceptions to the hearsay rule.... The question whether a declaration conforms to the spontaneity requirements of the rule is a preliminary question to be determined by the Trial Judge, not the jury, the test being whether the declarant was so influenced by the excitement and shock of the event that it is probable that he or she spoke impulsively and without reflection rather than reflectively and with deliberation.” [5]
In People v. Knapp[6], when the four-year-old victim's mother found her with the defendant, the child said words to the effect that defendant had sexually molested her. This was admissible because the traumatic and emotional nature of the event indicated that the statement was made while the child was still in a state of excitement.[7]
[1] See People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 537 NYS2d 113.
[2] Waterman v Whitney, 11 NY 157; Prince, Richardson on Evidence, 11th Ed. (Farrell), § 8-106.
[3] People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993).
[4] People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 379 N.Y.S.2d 695, 342 N.E.2d 496 (1975).
[5] Id.
[6] 1139 A.D.2d 931, 527 N.Y.S.2d 914 (4th Dep't), appeal denied, 72 N.Y.2d 862, 532 N.Y.S.2d 512, 528 N.E.2d 902 (1988).
[7] See 5 N.Y. Prac. Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts 8:30.
The present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions to the hearsay rule allow the statement as evidence of the truth contained in it.
An out of court statement is not hearsay where the mere utterance of a statement may indicate circumstantially the state of mind of the person who heard it or the state of mind of the speaker,[1] or the speaker's knowledge, reason, belief, intent, or emotion at the time of the occurrence of the event. The statements are admissible for their truth to prove that the event happened. [2]
The present sense impression exception permits a court to admit the hearsay testimony of a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter. Spontaneous descriptions of events made substantially contemporaneously with the observations are admissible if the descriptions are sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. Such statements may be admitted even though the declarant is not a participant in the events and is an unidentified bystander.[3]
The excited utterance exception was adopted by the Court of Appeals in People v. Caviness,[4] where the court held that a spontaneous declaration or excited utterance made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event, which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant is admissible. There, a witness to a shooting was allowed to testify that immediately after the victim was shot she said "Burnis shot Earl”, as she fell to the ground. The Court described the excited utterance exception:
"Spontaneous declarations frequently referred to with some inexactitude as res gestae declarations ... form an exception to the hearsay rule. It is established that spontaneous declarations made by a participant while he is under the stress of nervous excitement resulting from an injury or another startling event, while his reflective powers are stilled and during the brief period when considerations of self-interest could not have been brought fully to bear by reasoned reflection and deliberation, are admissible as true exceptions to the hearsay rule.... The question whether a declaration conforms to the spontaneity requirements of the rule is a preliminary question to be determined by the Trial Judge, not the jury, the test being whether the declarant was so influenced by the excitement and shock of the event that it is probable that he or she spoke impulsively and without reflection rather than reflectively and with deliberation.” [5]
In People v. Knapp[6], when the four-year-old victim's mother found her with the defendant, the child said words to the effect that defendant had sexually molested her. This was admissible because the traumatic and emotional nature of the event indicated that the statement was made while the child was still in a state of excitement.[7]
[1] See People v Reynoso, 73 NY2d 816, 537 NYS2d 113.
[2] Waterman v Whitney, 11 NY 157; Prince, Richardson on Evidence, 11th Ed. (Farrell), § 8-106.
[3] People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993).
[4] People v. Caviness, 38 N.Y.2d 227, 379 N.Y.S.2d 695, 342 N.E.2d 496 (1975).
[5] Id.
[6] 1139 A.D.2d 931, 527 N.Y.S.2d 914 (4th Dep't), appeal denied, 72 N.Y.2d 862, 532 N.Y.S.2d 512, 528 N.E.2d 902 (1988).
[7] See 5 N.Y. Prac. Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts 8:30.
The material on our website is from the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook , by Joel R. Brandes of the New York Bar. It focuses on the procedural and substantive law, as well as the law of evidence, that an attorney must have at his or her fingertips when trying a New York matrimonial action or custody case. It is intended to be an aide for preparing for a trial and as a reference for the procedure in offering and objecting to evidence during a trial. There are numerous questions for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc. publishes The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook . It is available in Bookstores, and online in the print edition at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads and other online book sellers.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
The New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook is available in Kindle ebook editions and epub ebook editions for all ebook readers in our website bookstore and in hard cover at our Bookbaby Bookstore.
|
Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc.
2881 NE 33rd Court (At Dock) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306. Telephone (954) 564-9883. email to:[email protected]. Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc is a Florida corporation which is owned and operated by
Joel R. Brandes of The New York Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. |
This website is published by Joel R. Brandes Consulting Services, Inc., and written by Joel R. Brandes of The Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes. P.C. Mr. Brandes has been recognized by the Appellate Division* as a "noted authority and expert on New York family law and divorce.” He is the author of the treatise Law and The Family New York, 2d (9 volumes),Law and the Family New York Forms 2d (5 Volumes), Law and the Family New York Forms 2019 Edition (5 volumes)(Thomson Reuters), and the New York Matrimonial Trial Handbook. Click here to visit New York Divorce and Family Law ™ the definitive site on the web for New York divorce and family law, presented by Joel R. Brandes of the Law Firm of Joel R. Brandes, P.C., 43 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. (212) 859-5079.
|