parts,’ ” the child replied “ ‘Un-huh, Mommy and Daddy do’ ” and proceeded to make a detailed allegation of abuse, the court held that there was sufficient spontaneity because “[although [the child’s] statement did not come out of the blue, it was not made in response to any question posed by [the caregiver]”). 31 156 Wash 2d 381, 390; 128 P3d 87 (2006). See also State v Young, 62 Wash App 895, 901; 802 P2d 829 (1991) (“Washington law.. . recognizes that a child’s answers are spontaneous so long as the questions are not leading or suggestive.... [And caselaw had] broadened the definition of ‘spontaneous’ to include ‘the entire context in which the child [made] the statement.’ ”). 32 944 F2d 445 (CA 8, 1991). 33 Id. at 451. 34 157 NJ 112; 723 A2d 588 (1999). 35 Id. at 122, 126-127 (<HOLDING>). See also Felix v State, 109 Nev 151, 167-168,
holding that verbal threats such as we going to get you you better drop the suit do not rise to the level of adverse action holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute holding that the childs statement regarding sexual abuse was not sufficiently trustworthy when made in direct response to the question  did anybody ever do anything like this to you to make you do this  after the child was found sexually touching her sister