recognize exception for the use a rule insofar as petitioner is concerned and we intimate no bew whatever that such exceptions necessarily raise questions on the confrontation clause in this case the reason exception an excited confusion going on in that garage at the time people were yelling but one thing we do know here is the first person said babie who is the complaining witness named was cheering and my client so you know all of this confusion he's saying it's jerry who hurt me and jerry saying it was bought up so even though only not much time passed that's certainly true and that's a factor that's considered when you're talking about an excited utterance but that's not a deciding factor and in this situation even though things were happening quickly you the s feeling where they didn't say it was reversible error many of the facts are completely the same the statement was repeated call to the jury's attention in the state's case in chief that happened in our case reckoning i don't remember if there was such a statement in philly however there are other i think the most important thing here is it's a substantive evidence of the state's closing this prosecutor said this is proof beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't so for that reason we ask that this court reversed the conviction every man for a new trial that that that works let me ask you this key n defendants who are involved in the activity that produces the circumstances that create the exciting event but i think that would be you know from my understanding of the evidence that was just back talk there was a peer in the parent very much so yes everyone was suit brief was filed by sed by your office without any independent review i think i just asked you that because did you or did you doubt review these first of all this issue wasn't much it was one of the allegations in the post trial motion so had the state the state now s saying i don't want consumption to be made that the state never had the opportunity to address the question that back to the second prong in philly on what happened was this court said arrest statements or questions this is this would be a different this would be an extension of to apply to this set of facts would you agree i think hesitate to agree because i did so much research and i'm not court united states is the inherent distrust of fingerpointing by people who are in custody yet making statements implicating another person that the concern is not stop but we don't know who he was talking to everyone's assuming he was talking about but there was a michael there the point is it wasn't just finger pointing it was more of a statement above what had just occurred well you can't be reflecting state on the fucking statement no it's more because of what he said the timing of what he said you have cherry people coming in and seeing jerry all play what happened here excuse me that your body is where eighteen minutes passed and still could be an excited utterance twenty minutes right i think yes so in this case it's not a team it's not we don't even know if it's even admitted it's a very short period of time and he actually one thing for the whole first of the testimony was that he was nervous and frantic immediately before he made that statement that was picked up by the but he didn't say it was cheering them when he ran into the house