and the Defen dant....” Both the excited utterance exception and the state of mind exception are firmly rooted hearsay exceptions. See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355 n8, 112 S.Ct. 736, 742,116 L.Ed.2d 848, 858 (1992); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). Therefore, reliability is presumed and we need not address whether there are particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. [¶ 41.] First, the victim’s statements were properly admitted under firmly rooted exceptions to the hearsay rule. Second, it is well understood that a murder victim’s statements, regarding fear of the accused, are admissible to rebut a defendant’s claim of accidental death. Davi, 504 N.W.2d at 854 (citing United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758, 766 (D.C.Cir.1973)) (<HOLDING>). See also Clay v. Com., 262 Va. 253, 546
holding that statements made during a compulsory psychological examination are admissible to rebut a defendants diminished capacity defense holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide holding evidence spanning entire marriage admissible to show death was not accidental holding statements admissible to rebut defendants claims of selfdefense suicide or accidental death holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage