With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that her testimony regarding the complainant’s out-of-court statements provided evidence critical to establishing the elements of the offense, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court’s error, in admitting the complainant’s out-of-court statements in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, did not contribute to appellant’s conviction. See Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(a). We sustain appellant’s sole issue. Conclusion We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 22.01 (Vernon Supp.2006). 2 . U.S. Const, amend. VI. 3 . Appellant does not appeal the trial court's ruling on his general hearsay objection. See Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). 4 . As conceded by the State at oral

A: holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay
B: 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
C: recognizing that excited utterance and testimonial hearsay inquiries are separate but related
D: holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement
C.