Cited by

See Berrisford, d at 850 (affirming admission of a statement made “just 90 minutes after the murder”); -84 (Minn. 1986) (affirming admission of statements made “within an hour” of a fire).

To be admissible, an excited utterance must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition,” (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition,” and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

Three requirements must be met for hearsay to qualify as an excited utterance: (1) there was a startling event or condition; (2) the hearsay statement relates to the startling event or condition; and (3) the declarant was “under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

y prohibition exists for “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The rationale for the exception “stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

g to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The rationale for the 7 exception “stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

To be admissible, “three requirements must be met: (1) there must be a startling event or condition; (2) the statement must relate to the startling event or condition; and (3) the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

d 846, 850 (Minn. 1985) (deferring to the district court’s determination that the declarant was 9 under a sufficient aura of excitement); –84 (Minn. 1986) (same).

Such a statement must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition,” (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition,” and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to [e]nsure the trustworthiness of the statement.” 1 St.

To be admissible as an excited utterance, a statement must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition,” (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition,” and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to [e]nsure the trustworthiness of the statement.” State v. Daniels , (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

second argument, a hearsay statement qualifies as an excited utterance when three requirements are met: “(1) there must be a startling event or condition; (2) the statement must relate to the startling event or condition; and (3) the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to [e]nsure the trustworthiness of the statement.” State v. Daniels , .

To be admissible as an excited utterance, a statement must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition,” (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition,” and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

To be admissible, an excited utterance must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition”; (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition”; and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

To be admissible, an excited utterance must meet three requirements: (1) “there must be a startling event or condition ;” (2) “the statement must relate to the startling event or condition;” and (3) “the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

See State v. Berrisford , (affirming the admission of a statement made “just 90 minutes after the murder”); -84 (Minn. 1986) (affirming the admission of statements made “within an hour” of a fire).

9 aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insu re the trustworthiness of the statement.” State v. Daniels

A statement is admissible as an excited utterance if: (1) there was “a startling event or condition,” (2) the statement related to the startling event or condition, and (3) “the declarant [was] under a sufficient aura of excitement c aused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

A statement is admissible as an excited utterance if (1) there was “a startling event or condition ,” (2) the statement relate d to the startling event or condition , and (3) “the declarant [was] under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

The rationale for the excited - utterance exception “stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.”

To qualify as an excited utt erance, a declarant’s statement must satisfy three requirements: “(1) there must be a startling event or condition; (2) the statement must relate to the startling event or condition; and (3) the declarant must be under a sufficient aura of excitement caused by the condition to ensure the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

“The rationale [for this exception] stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

See, e.g., State v. Daniels, CS-2

“The rationale [for the excited- utterance exception] stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” (quotation omitted).

Relevant factors for determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance include “‘the length of time elapsed, the nature of the event, the physical condition of the declarant, any 4 possible motive to falsify, etc.’” –83 (Minn. 1986) (quoting Minn. R. Evid.

(“If the hearsay statements .

was under the stress of excitement when she made the statements to Larson, which “eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.”

“The rationale [for the exception] stems from the belief that the excitement caused by the event eliminates the possibility of conscious fabrication, and insures the trustworthiness of the statement.” 4 (Minn. 1986).

Such a statement must be made under the “aura of excitement caused by the event or condition to insure the trustworthiness of the statement.”

The district court must consider all relevant circumstances including “the length of time elapsed, the nature of the event, the physical condition of the declarant, [and] any possible motive to falsify.” -83 (Minn. 1986) (quotation omitted).

Relevant factors in determining whether an out-of-court statement qualifies as an excited utterance include “the length of time elapsed, the nature of the event, the physical condition of the declar-ant, and any possible motive to falsify.” -83 (Minn.1986) (quotation omitted).