Which statement related to excited utterance provides clarity on its admissibility?

The correct statement highlights that an excited utterance must be made while the declarant is under the stress of a startling condition. This is a critical element in determining the admissibility of such statements under the hearsay exception for excited utterances. The rationale behind this requirement is that the stress of the startling event inhibits the declarant's capacity to fabricate or lie, thus providing a level of reliability to the statement.

The statement must convey that it is a spontaneous reaction to the emotional impact of the event, rather than a premeditated declaration. The idea is that when a person is responding to an event that has shocked or surprised them, their immediate reaction tends to be more truthful. Thus, the timing and context of the utterance are essential factors in establishing its reliability and admissibility in court.

The other options do not accurately reflect the characteristics of excited utterances; for example, statements related to prior incidents or those made during public questioning do not align with the core definition of what constitutes an excited utterance. This core requirement is foundational in ensuring that such statements can be allowed as evidence in legal proceedings.