a. No proof Joy was under stress. Only evidence is her own statement that she is still shaking.

b. No proof Joy had personal knowledge. No one has yet testified that she saw the accident.

(2) Note that it does not matter whether Joy was "involved" in the accident.

(3) How should the court rule on the excited utterance response?

a. Judicial discretion. Just because a person appears calm does not mean they were not under stress. A judge could find that anyone who witnesses a horrible accident would still be under stress 12 minutes later.

b. I would probably sustain the objection, but not because of her calmness -- rather, because there is no foundation of personal knowledge.

(4) Other than "excited utterance," what is the Plaintiff's best response to the hearsay objection?

When you think you know the answer, click here to continue.