CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Spontaneous Stmts/Excited Utterances
.........In General
 26 Cards On This Topic:
  • Evidence of statement not made inadmissible by hearsay rule if statement describes event perceived by declarant and was made spontaneously while under stress of excitement caused by such perception.
  • Spontaneous declaration is a "firmly rooted" exception to hearsay rule which satisfies confrontation clause.
  • Unavailable eyewitness's statements to O immediately after robbery and murder dealt with ongoing emergency, were not testimonial under Crawford and their admission did not violate D's confrontation rights.
  • D's wife's statement to brother-in-law that D had hit her, to rebut D's evidence she was an abusive spouse, not testimonial under Crawford and properly admitted as spontaneous utterance.
  • Harmless error to admit, as spontaneous stmts, V's stmts about D's touching her, made to friend a week before she disappeared, where not clear V's reflective powers were still in abeyance and that she had no time to contrive or misrepresent.
  • As factors surrounding V's stmts to daughter collectively showed her mental state while describing the attack was thoughtful and reflective, abuse of discretion to admit them as spontaneous utterances.
  • Station attendant’s statements to supervisor and O about robbery, and license of motorcycle used in it, properly admitted as spontaneous declarations where V under stress of event, sounded nervous and scared.
  • No abuse of discretion in admitting tape of police call by witness to whom percipient witnesses relayed events of robbery—both levels of hearsay qualified as spontaneous utterance.
  • Gunshot V's spontaneous statement of names to 'who did it' question described the event she perceived and was properly admitted as spontaneous utterance.
  • Hearsay evidence of deceased friend of D's properly excluded as no indication F had personally perceived events.
  • H's 911 call on finding W's body and tape of subsequent interview with O properly admitted as spontaneous utterances under Evid. Code §1240 and relevant under Evid. Code §352.
  • Witness' testimony as to what V told her that D said properly admitted as spontaneous declaration; stmt does not lack reliability because V cannot recall later.
  • Excited utterances and spontaneous statements have sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible without violating confrontation rights.
  • Statement properly admitted as spontaneous declaration; such statements provide sufficient indicia of reliability that D's confrontation right not violated.
  • W's stmts in 911 call while fleeing H who shot at her described an ongoing emergency, were thus nontestimonial and did not violate H's confrontation right.
  • Substantial evidence supported determination that frightened phone call to police from deputy sheriff's ex-girlfriend about his assaulting her came within spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule.
  • V’s stmts to paramedic and officer at scene properly admitted as nontestimonial, and 3d stmt describing attacker as partial impeachment under EC 1202 of her earlier descriptions.
  • Stabbing V's statements to 911 operator and officer were admissible as spontaneous statements, were non-testimonial in nature, and therefore not barred by Crawford.
  • Girlfriend's testimony about D2's demeanor provided substantial evidence of the preliminary facts showing his statements to her implicating D1 in instant crimes were spontaneous statements under EC 1240.
  • Implied ruling that spontaneous statement exception applied to V's stmts to W re shooting was proper.
  • Admitting wife's inculpating statements to responding officers after D injured her did not violate his confrontation right because they were spontaneous statements and not testimonial under Crawford.
  • Nicole's statements to officers re prior incidents of abuse by O.J. relevant to show motive, intent and identity and came within spontaneous statement hearsay exception.
  • V's statement identifying shooter as rival gang member, made immediately after V shot in face, admissible as excited utterance; rationale for rule stated.
  • Evidence of statement by victim in phone call shortly before victim's murder inadmissible as spontaneous declaration.
  • Minor's confrontation rights not violated where victim did not testify to spontaneous statements.
  • Cases discussing aspects of the spontaneous statement exception.


    •