In Bell V State, the Florida Victim of an Attempted Kidnapping at Kidnapping

In Bell v. State, the Florida victim of an attempted kidnapping at gunpoint stated that she was walking along the street during the daytime when the defendant twice drove up to her in his van and offered to give her a ride to her destination. The defendant changed his location and accosted her by grabbing her around the neck, holding a gun to her head, and attempted to force her into his vehicle. When she broke free and ran into traffic, she pounded on cars and asked for help in getting away. The defendant, while standing nearby, pointed his gun in her direction and threatened to shoot her. When she managed to call police and talk to them at her residence, she was barely able to speak coherently. When she told her story to police, police officers were able to remember it sufficiently to testify about her original statement to police. The defendant argued that the victim's statements failed to meet the excited utterance test because there was a time delay of approximately 50 minutes between the time of the incident and the time the victim became calm enough to speak. According to the defendant, this was sufficient time for the victim to contrive or misrepresent. What are the general requirements for the application of the excited utterance exception? Would the victim have had time for reason to return if it took 50 minutes for her to become coherent? Did the court approve of the admission of an excited utterance exception in this case? Do you agree with the court's decision? Why or why not?