An Excited Utterance Can Be Admissible Even When Self-Serving
During the course of a criminal trial it is not unfamiliar for a judge to sustain an hearsay objection whenever the hearsay statement is that of the person on trial. This is true even when the statement qualifies for admission under an exception to the hearsay rule. The common refrain from the prosecutor is, “But judge, it’s self-serving. Self-serving hearsay is inadmissible.” This can be enough to persuade the judge.
However, criminal defense attorneys have a new case with which to arm themselves against this wrong line of thinking. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Hinck v. State, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D2681c (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) held that so long as the particular requirements of the exception are met, in this case it was an excited utterance, the self-serving nature of the statement will not automatically preclude its admission into evidence; it is but one consideration.
The Excited Utterance Hearsay Exception
Fla. Stat. 90.803(2) allows for the admission of an “excited utterance” when the following criteria is met: [T]he statement must be made: (1) regarding an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) while the person was under the stress or excitement caused by the event. Hayward v. State, 24 So.3d 17 (Fla. 2009). Conspicuously absent is any requirement that the statement not benefit the defendant if the statement is his.
The confusion comes from the courts’ ability to blend the requirements for the admission of a spontaneous statement and excited utterance. It shouldn’t be done, but an element for the admission of a spontaneous statement is it not be made under circumstances which indicate its lack of trustworthiness. Obviously, you don’t want unreliable evidence to be admitted; but the fact that a person is under the stress or excitement of a startling event is exactly what gives an excited utterance its trustworthiness. If the statement is fabricated, then its not being made under stress or excitement. As such, this requirement is unnecessary for an excited utterance to be admitted.
State v. Hinck
In this case, Hinck had stabbed a man with whom he met online for a casual sexual encounter. Hinck claimed that he had a change of heart about going through with the act and that the victim of the stabbing had tried to force himself upon Hinck. Hinck claimed to have responded in self defense by using his knife.
Upon coming down the stairs from the hotel room, Hinck stated to the hotel attendant, “I’ve been attacked; I stabbed someone.” This is the statement to which the state objected. The trial court sustained that objected and Hinck was ultimately convicted.
However, the appellate court reversed the conviction because the statement should have been admitted and such error was not harmless.
Call The Bantner Firm
If you find yourself or someone you love facing a serious felony allegation, you need an attorney who knows his way around the courtroom. Adam Bantner is a board certified criminal trial law attorney helping the accused in Hillsborough County. Call us today for your free consultation. 813.397.3965.