Whether the court of appeals erred in its admission of the father's 911 call under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule

Questions Presented For Review I. Dicl the court of appeals err by holding at the father’s entire 411 call was adm;ssible Under the Cantran hihion Chas Se? * Did the court o€ Appeals err by holding thatthe first Portion of the All call Was excited . utterance? 9: Did the court of a Is err in its vse of the ‘nvitederror doctrve to atbiom Williams's a A anuetins Was Williamss sixth Am cht, Uni iets Cast Won dinendanagl Wea Ried Viah Roles of Evidence? > Did the Ulah Supreme Court err in dlonin Will'ams’s Case. for revieus® | 4 examin wag eesmon) Pres The 4 Aten “ee the waht s) MG ment a trial ight to C7 nT Acight, ae ° here Cross 4b eS the 4 ated wit access Ch Violati tne Sin Abst whflagn <f eS $ oe enjoy? eRe. gens yoice ane A lyogthene! rove, that mt. Vic HREM BL Re avid Wham 95 er "07 agains! ME uide fed by folige oti : y st him ans or Wy ne’ ofcers Q" Ar rial oonbiynig rs in the How credi'b ie Gad" Cone spepeg Oly wage Ore te eet io ler gga t hy Wasyit a cod @ victm/wi egatens OM ee, | restr Fd I ae eh (oT cgrhy® possibil 1; ‘Home | taf / C5 yy Victom oe was ami " a9 if D get a clea @ mistake * ey ding he tine look at the ih O"w OE Cafe Sakae sed hme of the 4 irmruder? as the Vi Vs Ga helween @ incha, : bloctin Victom ¢ Ml, 470 2 the All ont? oxen 9, out the Coverin v2 20 Hedge if My arethon nd Ae ¥ Pin Some rC Asavlt rf the As er Aaron remnants FSS ane alse Ox he mop ooct wh, 1 wie 5 mn Nast enue Why wa sat A y onder he We Kreseqt Ween) rin hg _1AenTy During, + a, gbrgy 148 Wilhams call y Usha ams ee ti ed as a witness