Problem:
In the criminal prosecution of the Defendant for assault and battery on the Victim, the prosecution calls W1, who testifies that she was present in the bar where the altercation took place. She will further testify that just after the fight started, she heard X, another patron who was sitting close to the Victim, scream, "Oh my Lord! Defendant just attacked that poor person from behind!" The defense objects to this testimony as being impermissible hearsay and that even if it satisfies the hearsay rule, its admission would violate the Defendant's confrontation rights. Which of the following statements is most likely correct? ***Hint...consider testimonial v. non-testimonial under Crawford. A. X's statement is hearsay but admissible as an excited utterance. The court may admit it despite the Confrontation Clause without further inquiry. B. X's statement is hearsay but admissible as an excited utterance. The court may admit it despite the Confrontation Clause only if it finds that the statement bears sufficient independent indicia of reliability. C. X's statement is not hearsay and its admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause. D. X's statement is hearsay but admissible as an excited utterance. The Confrontation Clause will only be satisfied if X is?