Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.W.3d at 595; Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 154 (Tex.Crim.App.2001). However, it is not dispositive that the statement is an answer to a question or that it was separated by a period of time from the startling event; these are simply factors to consider in determining whether the statement is admissible under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 596. The critical determination is “whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event” at the time of the statement. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 596. Stated differently, a reviewing court must determine whether the statement was made “under such circumstances as would reasonably show that it resulted from impulse rather than reason a -Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); see also Reyes v. State, 48 S.W.3d 917, 920 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances (B) holding that the statements of a scared to death declarant whispering help me to police officers twenty hours after being assaulted were excited utterances (C) holding statements qualified as excited utterances where declarant was scared and tired and her statements were in response to questions twenty hours after the event (D) holding that the statements of a recently assaulted very upset and crying assault victim were excited utterances (E) holding that the determination of whether statements are excited utterances is within the trial courts discretion and its ruling will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion
Output (English): holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances