Texas Rules of Evidence provides that “[a] statement describing or explaining ... [a] condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately L.Ed.2d 731 (1993). Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting Carless’ and Carlos’ testimony regarding Carolina’s first statement. Carolina’s second statement described her emotional response to the condition she described. Rule 803(3) provides that “[a] statement of the declarant’s then existing state of ... emotion” is not excluded by the hearsay rule. Tex.R. Evid. 803(3). Thus, a victim’s statement regarding her emotional response to a particular person qualifies as a statement of then existing state of emotion under Rule 803(3). See, e.g., Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). We therefore hold the trial court did not err
holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement holding that trial court did not err holding trial court did not err in admitting victims statement that she was afraid of man with same first name as defendant because statement admissible under rule 8033 holding that where the proffered hearsay statement of the victim pertained to a memory of the previous days events and was offered solely for the purpose of proving such events such statement was not admissible under rule 8033