by admitting Anderson’s statement because the State offered no evidence of the circumstances surrounding Anderson’s statement, other than the statement itself, to prove it was an excited utterance. Specifically, appellant contends that the State failed to show (1) that Anderson experienced an exciting event or witnessed the shooting, (2) Anderson’s source of knowledge of the shooting, (3) how much time elapsed, or what occurred, between the exciting event and Anderson’s statement, and (4) whether the term “cousin” used by Anderson actually referred to appellant. Exciting Event Appellant first contends Anderson’s statement did not qualify as an excited utterance because the evidence did not establish that Anderson had experienced an exciting event that produced his statement. See id. (<HOLDING>). Appellant directs us to Cabbie’s trial
holding statement must be made contemporaneously with the excitement or stresscausing event holding that a lower court properly admitted a fouryear olds hearsay statement although she made it 1215 hours after the startling event holding that statement that declarant saw defendant outside was admissible under rule 8081 because the statement explained an event or condition holding that statement must be product of a startling event holding trial court could have found startling event or condition was declarants sustaining an injury or the pain she later experienced