relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Tex.R. Evid. 803(2). In determining whether a hearsay statement is admissible as an excited utterance, the court may consider the time elapsed and whether the statement was in response to a question. Zuliani, x.App.-Fort Worth 2001, no pet.); Bondurant v. State, 956 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. ref'd). 2. Confrontation Clause Objection to Ojftcer Mullinax’s Testimony Whether Officer Mullinax’s testimony violated Davis’s Confrontation Clause rights, however, is an altogether separate inquiry from whether the testimony was properly admitted under the rules of evidence. See Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we next conduct an analysis of whether
recognizing that excited utterance and testimonial hearsay inquiries are separate but related 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 holding forensic laboratory experts statement that substance was cocaine is testimonial for sixth amendment confrontation clause purposes recognizing statement could be admissible as an excited utterance and still constitute a testimonial statement for purposes of a confrontation clause analysis holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement