Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CK demonstrated sexual intercourse. Id. This testimony was admitted by the military judge, over defense objection, under Mil. R. Evid. 803(2), as an excited utterance. Record at 113-14. The military judge premised his ruling on a finding that the revelation was made while CK was excited from the startling event of learning her mother was not going to be with her at the upcoming visit with the appellant. Id. The statements by CK were an example of delayed reporting, made more than 1 year after any abusive conduct was alleged to have occurred, and well after CK’s opportunity to privately report the assaults to her mother. To be admissible, an excited utterance must be made while under the excitement of the offense being prosecuted. See generally United States v. Grant, 42 M.J. 340 (1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Arnold, 25 M.J. 129 
 Holding statements: (A) holding 36 to 48 hours between assault and excited report not within mil r evid 8032 hearsay exception (B) holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule (C) holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible (D) recognizing that excited utterance and testimonial hearsay inquiries are separate but related (E) holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances
Output (English): recognizing that excited utterance and testimonial hearsay inquiries are separate but related