CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......Spontaneous Stmts/Excited Utterances
.........Effect of Time Passage or Questioning
24 Cards On This Topic:
  • In admitting V's statement to O as to D's threat, made 5 1/2 hrs after threat, as an excited utterance, state court failed to apply federal standard for reliability and admission violated D's confrontation right.
  • No abuse of discretion in finding 2-hr. period in which V made statements to O did not deprive them of their spontaneity where she was crying, distraught and shaking at the beginning and end of the period.
  • Although V's statement as to D's threat came 2-7 hours after her cousin was murdered and she was attacked, it retained its spontaneity because V's mental and physical condition prevented her from reflecting on and fabricating her account.
  • Abuse of discretion to admit 3-yr.-old's statements implicating father in mother's murder as spontaneous utterance because of passage of time before statements made; no confrontation violation.
  • No spontaneous statement exception for D's brother's statement to his girlfriend that another admitted to being the shooter where statement made after 30 minutes to hour delay.
  • Hearsay statements of eyewitness, upset and crying 2 1/2 hours after crime, properly admitted under spontaneous utterance exception.
  • No abuse of discretion in ruling jailhouse battery V's statements in identifying D from photo as batterer qualified as spontaneous statements under EC 1240.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting distraught domestic violence V's statement to O at police station as an excited utterance.
  • Neither lapse of time nor fact that the declarations were elicited by questioning deprives statements of spontaneity if made under the stress of excitement and while the reflective powers still in abeyance.
  • Harmless error to allow statements V made to third parties about the rape under spontaneous statement hearsay exception where V had time to deliberate and reflect.
  • Abuse of discretion to admit dependent adult's statement as spontaneous declaration where two days passed between initial call and hearsay statement and she patently had the chance to return to a calmer mental state.
  • Statement made 18 hours after attack held spontaneous; crucial element is mental state of speaker.
  • That witness answered question, rather than initiated statement, does not ipso facto deprive statement of spontaneity.
  • V's statements to police 30 minutes after attack, when V calm enough to speak coherently, are admissible as spontaneous statements.
  • Neither lapse of time nor questioning will deprive statement of spontaneity if statement made under stress of excitement while reflective powers in abeyance. Issue of spontaneity is for trial ct., not jury.
  • Admission of dying V wife's spontaneous statements to Os that D set her on fire did not violate D's right to confrontation under Crawford.
  • 2 1/2-year-old's statements re mother's murder qualify as excited utterances when made 2 days after event to first trustworthy person she saw.
  • Spontaneous statement need not be made at time of incident, but rather under circumstances such that statement made without reflection.
  • Neither lapse of time nor questioning will deprive statement of spontaneity if statement made under stress of excitement while reflective powers in abeyance.
  • V's statement that D went crazy and was going to shoot him made contemporaneously with attack, was admitted as spontaneous statement.
  • V's statement to doctor made 30-40 minutes after his injury in response to question, "what happened," sufficiently spontaneous to qualify as spontaneous statement.
  • Statement made on night after murder that otherwise qualified as spontaneous statement admissible as such.
  • Lapse of time between event and declaration describing it, and that declaration elicited by questioning, do not deprive statement of spontaneity.
  • Child V's hearsay statements admissible only if statements bear particularized guarantees of trustworthiness without consideration of corroboration.