one half-hour after the ‘startling event’ only under extreme and continuing stress.” Davenport v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1144, 1149 (Ind.2001) (citing Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344, 1346-47 (Ind.1996)). Furthermore, an excited utterance can be made in response to a question so long as the statement is unrehearsed and is made under the stress of excitement from the event. Yamobi, 672 N.E.2d at 1346 (“A declaration does not lack spontaneity simply because it was an answer to a question.”); Williams v. State, 782 N.E.2d 1039, 1046 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In addition, we have considered if the declarant is crying, appears to be under stress, is injured, or is exhibiting other physical or psychological conditions that indicate stress. See e.g., Fowler v. State, 829 N.E.2d 459, 463-64 (Ind.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, abrogated on other grounds by
holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances holding that the statements of a recently assaulted very upset and crying assault victim were excited utterances holding that the statements of a scared to death declarant whispering help me to police officers twenty hours after being assaulted were excited utterances 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 statements qualified as excited utterances where declarant was scared and tired and her statements were in response to questions twenty hours after the event