Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of an exciting event, and the declarant’s personal perception of it. See McLaughlin v. Vinzant, Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref'd). Assuming that Anderson learned of the shooting by a source, other than first-hand knowledge, the trial court could have reasonably found that Anderson’s statement to Cabbie “related to a startling event,” that event being acquiring knowledge that appellant killed someone, and that Anderson was still under the “emotional stress of the excitement caused by the event or condition.” See Salazar, 38 S.W.3d at 154-55. Anderson’s Source of Knowledge Appellant argues that Anderson’s source of knowledge of the shooting is critical because Anderson may have ding that Anderson was still dominated by the emotions caused by the shooting. See Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 596 (<HOLDING>). Cabbie testified that when Anderson arrived 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained (B) holding statement must be made contemporaneously with the excitement or stresscausing event (C) holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant (D) holding that the most critical factor in the analysis of a reasonable fee is the degree of success obtained (E) holding that critical factor is whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions excitement fear or pain of the event
Output (English): holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant