Florida Statute 90.803(2)
EXCITED UTTERANCE — A statement or excited utterance relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.
Beckman v. State
230 So.3d 77 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2017)
"Whether the necessary state of mind is present for a court to admit a statement as an `excited utterance' exception is a preliminary fact for the trial court's determination." Cotton v. State, 763 So. 2d 437, 440-41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (en banc) (citing Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 803.2 (1998 Ed.)); see also Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("To admit an excited utterance, the trial court must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the factual circumstances permitting the introduction of the statement as an excited utterance."). Our standard of review on appeal is abuse of discretion. Cotton, 763 So. 2d at 441.
The "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule requires that the out-of-court statement relate to "a startling event . . . made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event." § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2013). As explained by the Florida Supreme Court, "in order for an excited utterance to be admissible, the following requirements must be met: (1) there must have been an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must have been made while the person was under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event." Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla. 2000).
"the time interval between the [startling] event and the statement is long enough to permit reflective thought, the statement will be excluded in the absence of some proof that the declarant did not in fact engage in a reflective thought process." State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla. 1988) (quoting McCormick on Evidence, § 297 (3d ed.));
