A victims spontaneous out-of-court statements were admissible at trial. Over defense objection, the trial court admitted a double-hearsay statement from a detective, recounting an uncooperative prosecution witnesss description of statements made to him by a shooting victim. The shooting victim had told the witness that he had been shot in the ankle in a gang-related incident and had given some details of the shooting. In spite of the time lapse between the shooting and the statements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the statements qualified as spontaneous declarations under Evidence Code section 1240. The Court of Appeal held that the record supported an implied finding that the victim was still under the stress of excitement caused by the shooting at the time he made the statements. Moreover, the admission of the statements did not implicate the Sixth Amendment because the statements were not testimonial in nature.