With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not qualify as an excited utterance because the State failed to show the amount of time that elapsed between the shooting and Anderson’s purported statement. Appellant further maintains that Anderson’s statement is not reliable because the State was unable to show Anderson’s actions during the time between the shooting and the statement, and therefore, Anderson may have had the opportunity to reflect on, or fabricate, the details of the shooting. The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule is founded on the belief that a statement made as a result of a startling event or condition is involuntary and does not allow the declarant an adequate opportunity to fabricate, thereby ensuring the trustworthiness of the statement. Couchman, 3 S.W.3d at p.-San Antonio 2002, pet. ref'd.) (<HOLDING>); Gay v. State, 981 S.W.2d 864, 867

A: holding no excited utterance because declarant had time to fabricate during oneyear lapse
B: holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there
C: holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there
D: holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant
A.