police immediately after being rescued not testimonial). 15 . To this extent, although the analyses are conceptually distinct, some of the same underlying facts and circumstances may bear upon the determination of both whether a hearsay statement is an excited utterance and whether it is testimonial under Crawford. The State proposes that, in cases where the status of a hearsay statement as an excited utterance and Crawford testimonial hearsay are both disputed, we adopt an analytical framework in which we consider, first, whether the statement is an excited utterance; and, if so, then whether it is testimonial. We agree that this is a useful framework — and one consistent with Davis — and apply it here. 16 .See Flores v. State, 170 S.W.3d 722, 722 (Tex.App.-Amarillo, 2005, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>); Lee v. State, 143 S.W.3d 565, 568-71
holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised holding that the defendants objection did not suggest that the objected to statement was hearsay and therefore concluding that the defendant waived appellate review of the hearsay argument holding that hearsay statement between relatives concerning the circumstances of an infants death was not testimonial holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay