To qualify as an excited utterance under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule, a statement need not be contemporaneous with the startling event or condition to which the statement relates: the statement may be made after the startling event or condition.

United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 236-237 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the autopsy reports because (1) "the autopsy reports [were] business records as defined in FED. R. EVID.....no

United States v. Lee, 249 F.3d 632, pin? (7th Cir. 2001) (accused, in attempt to deflect responsibility, offered to show that another possible culprit failed polygraph exam about the crime; on appeal, court said that there is no consensus about reliability of polygraph,...Polygraph test results are insufficiently reliable to be admissible.

United States v. Larson, 112 F.3d 600, 605 (2d Cir. 1997) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony about accused's prior criminal sexual conduct with another minor because it was relevant as there was similarity of the events between the prior criminal sexual conduct and the offense...Federal Rule of Evidence 414 and comparable rules in a few States create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" use of character -- the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct -- by providing that in a criminal trial for child molestation or child sexual abuse, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation or child sexual abuse is relevant and admissible.