## Facts

- Carol A. Miller drove east on U.S. Route 22 near Easton, Pennsylvania, with Annette Vay as a passenger.
- Miller and a UPS truck moved from the right lane to the left lane to avoid a stalled vehicle near an exit.
- A Texaco tractor-trailer driven by Lawrence M. Keating struck Miller’s car from behind, pushing it into another vehicle and then into the UPS truck.
- Miller suffered serious injuries and, with her husband Howard C. Miller, sued Keating and Texaco for negligence.
- Trial testimony conflicted on (1) how long Miller had been in the left lane before impact and (2) whether her car was stopped behind the UPS truck or still moving.
- Kenneth and Elfriede Parris testified they heard an unidentified person at the scene say words to the effect that Miller “tried to cut in,” implying she caused the collision; the Parrises could not identify the speaker.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting an unidentified declarant’s accusatory statement heard at the accident scene as “res gestae” or an excited utterance under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) without an adequate foundation.
2. Whether any error in admitting the statement was harmless given the contested liability evidence.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the judgment for defendants and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the statement was improperly admitted because the proponent failed to establish the foundation required for an excited utterance under Rule 803(2).
- The court rejected “res gestae” as a sufficient evidentiary basis under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The error was not harmless because the statement directly supported the defense theory on the central question of fault amid sharply conflicting testimony.

## Legal Principles

- “Res gestae” is not an independent basis for admitting hearsay; admissibility must be analyzed under the specific hearsay exceptions in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- Under FRE 803(2), an excited utterance requires a sufficient showing that:
  - the declarant personally perceived the startling event or condition; and
  - the statement was made while under the stress of excitement caused by the event, limiting reflective fabrication.
- The proponent bears the burden of establishing the Rule 803(2) foundation, and the trial court must perform a gatekeeping function under FRE 104(a) through explicit or implicit findings supported by the record.
- When the declarant is unidentified, courts must scrutinize whether circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness exist, including evidence of the declarant’s opportunity to observe and the timing and spontaneity of the statement.
- Evidentiary error is not harmless when the improperly admitted hearsay likely affected the jury’s resolution of the key disputed issue.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit ordered a new trial because admitting an unidentified bystander’s blame-assigning statement without proof of personal perception and genuine spontaneity did not satisfy FRE 803(2) and likely influenced the jury’s fault determination in a closely contested negligence case.


Miller v. Keating, 754 F.2d 507 (3d Cir. 1985)