Challenging Excited Utterance Evidence

Summary

To exclude an excited utterance in California, argue it wasnt made under stress, the declarant had time to reflect, or it lacks reliability. In self-defense cases, show intent was interrupted by new threats.

Full Conversation

****In california
A lawyer in California can try to get an excited utterance thrown out by challenging its admissibility on several grounds. Here are a few key points:
- Argue that the statement was not made under the stress of excitement.
- Demonstrate that the declarant had time to reflect before speaking.
- Contend that the utterance lacks reliability or relevance.
Is there a specific case or scenario you are dealing with? This could help tailor the advice further.
A case where a threat was made that the defendant was coming back with her boyfriend with a weapon but the defendant had a gun pulled out on him and was shot at first how can the attorney get the hearsay thrown out of evidence
In California, to get the hearsay (excited utterance) thrown out, a lawyer could argue:
- The declarant was not under stress or excitement.
- The declarant had time to reflect before speaking.
- The statement’s reliability and relevance are questionable.
Is this related to a self-defense claim?
Yes
In a self-defense claim in California, the defense attorney can argue to exclude the excited utterance by:
- Demonstrating the declarant was not under stress or excitement.
- Showing the declarant had time to reflect before speaking.
- Questioning the statement's reliability and relevance.
Does this address your concerns?
Wife was attacked and * minutes later made a call to the attacker and made a threat to bring boyfriend back with a weapon how to get this thrown out of evidence
To get the threat thrown out as evidence in California, the defense attorney can argue:
- The call was made * minutes later, indicating time to reflect, not an excited utterance.
- The statement's reliability and relevance are questionable.
Are there any other aspects of the case you need help with?
Define how intent was interrupted when attacker came out with a gun
In California, to show how intent was interrupted when the attacker came out with a gun, the defense can argue:
- The initial threat was not followed through because the situation drastically changed.
- The presence of the gun created a new, immediate danger, altering the course of events.
- The defendant's immediate reaction was in response to the new threat, not a premeditated intent.
Is there anything else specific about the case you'd like to discuss?