Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In other words, the statement is trustworthy because it represents an event speaking through the person rather than the person speaking about the event. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 595. The lapse of time between the event a e reasonably concluded that Anderson had not been able to reflect or fabricate and was still under the excitement and stress of the shooting at the time of the statement. Anderson’s statement was made only a few hours after the shooting, an event likely to produce extreme excitement and shock so as to ensure the statement’s spontaneity and reliability. Because of the extreme nature of the startling event, and the short passage of time, it is highly probable that Anderson was still dominated by the emotion caused by the startling event. See Lawton, 913 5.W.2d at 553-54 (<HOLDING>); Cf. Aguilera v. State, 75 S.W.3d 60, 68 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing statement could be admissible as an excited utterance and still constitute a testimonial statement for purposes of a confrontation clause analysis (B) holding that a statement made by a witness to a shooting an hour or two after the incident was not an excited utterance as it was not made while the speaker was laboring under excitement and before he had to time to reflect (C) holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement (D) holding that a victims statement to her sister that she had been raped was an excited utterance when between the time of the assault and her making the statement the victim dressed herself and walked down the stairs (E) holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations
Output (English): holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations