State v. Underwood

I join in the conclusion that the victim’s statements were admissible under OEC 803(2), the “excited-utterance” exception to the hearsay rule. I write separately because the trial court made a comment below that indicates a need to clarify the analytical framework that we use to determine *282whether a statement falls within the excited-utterance exception.

The rationale behind the excited-utterance exception is that an event may be so startling, upsetting, or painful that it “temporarily stills [a declarant’s] capacity for reflection and produces utterances free of conscious fabrication.” 1981…