Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Under Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may admit out-of-court statements for the truth of the matter asserted when they 'relate to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.' To satisfy the exception, a party must show three things. 'First, there must be an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement. Second, the statement must be made before there is time to contrive or misrepresent. And, third, the statement must be made while the person is under the stress of the excitement caused by the event.' Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm, 715 F.2d 1050, 1057 (6th Cir.1983). All three inquiries bear on 'the ultimate question': 'Whether the statement was the result of reflective thought or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to the exciting event.' Id. at 1058 (internal quotation marks omitted). Appeals courts apply abuse-of-discretion review to a district court's application of the rule. See United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, 540 (6th Cir.2004).

The unexpected appearance of the victim's assailant independently suffices to establish a startling event followed by an understandably excited ...

Register or login to access full content