Is there an abuse of a district court's admission of evidence under the hearsay rule?

The district court ruled the evidence was admissible either as a present sense impression or an excited utterance. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule. United States v. Bland, 961 F.2d 123, 126 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 858 (1992).

Even if the questions were hearsay, the district court did not err in determining the evidence was admissible under the excited utterance exception. ¹ To be admissible under the excited utterance exception, "there must be some occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render normal reflective thought processes inoperative" and the statement "must have been a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the result of reflective thought." United States v. McLennan, 563 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.1977) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969 (1978).