influence or motive____” Tome, 513 U.S. at 165-67,115 S.Ct. at 705. In the brief at trial, the Government moved in the alternative to have the drawings admitted under the so-called residual hearsay rule, Mil. R. Evid. 803(24). The flaw in that argument is that CK testified in a very straight-forward manner. In order to use the hearsay exception under Mil. R. Evid. 803(24), the statement must, among other things, be “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.” Mil. R. Evid. 803(24)(B). In the appellant’s case, CK’s in-court testimony is the most probative evidence of the abuse. TK’s testimony is less straightforward than CK’s, but his drawings, without TK’s testimony, are probative o .R.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Miller, 32 M.J. 843
holding that statement must be product of a startling event holding statement made twentythree minutes after event admissible as a present sense impression holding that critical factor is whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions excitement fear or pain of the event 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 holding statement must be made contemporaneously with the excitement or stresscausing event