PER CURIAM.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). We disagree and affirm.
Whether or not the declarant has the necessary state of mind for his or her statement to constitute an excited utterance is a preliminary question of fact for the court to decide. See Perry v. State,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.