Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): told about the shooting by someone else; in such case, the third party’s out-of-court statement would constitute hearsay, and therefore, must independently satisfy a hearsay exception. See Tex.R. Evid. 805. We find that this contention is without merit. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Tex.R. Evid. 801(d). Although Anderson may have learned of the shooting from a third party, the State did not offer the third party’s statement into evidence. The only out-of-court statement offered into evidence was Anderson’s own statement. Therefore, the State was only required to show that Anderson’s statement falls within a hearsay exception. Passage of Time Appellant also contends that Anderson’s statement ston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we note that the record supports a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no excited utterance because declarant most likely deliberated about the offense during 10day lapse (B) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (C) holding no excited utterance because declarant had time to fabricate during oneyear lapse (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper
Output (English): holding no excited utterance because declarant had time to fabricate during oneyear lapse