[¶ 1] Richard Robinson appeals the judgment of conviction of assault, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207 (1983 & Supp.2000), entered upon a jury verdict in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Fritzsche, J.). Robinson contends that (1) the court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of Crystal Murano, the victim of Robinson’s assault, pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, M.R. Evid. 803(2); (2) the admission of Murano’s statements violated his constitutional right to confront his accuser; and (3) there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of assault. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] In October 1998, Robinson was arrested for assaulting his then live-in girlfriend, Crystal Murano, at their apartment in Portland. A jury convicted Robinson of assault. 1 The events leading up to Robinson’s arrest and subsequent conviction may be summarized as follows.
[¶ 3] On October 4, 1998, at approximately 8:30 P.M., Steven Haskins, who was Murano’s next door neighbor, called the police after he heard loud yelling from Murano’s apartment. The walls that separated his apartment from Murano’s were not very thick. For about ten minutes, he heard an angry male voice repeatedly yelling, and heard responses from a fearful female voice. Convinced that the female was getting “beat up,” Haskins called 911 and ran outside to meet the responding officers.
[¶ 4] Within minutes, two Portland police officers who had been patrolling in the vicinity arrived at the apartment complex, and pursuant to Haskins’s directions, proceeded to Murano’s apartment. Officer Mark Gibbons knocked on her door and announced their presence. When, after about thirty seconds, someone answered the door, Gibbons saw a woman, whom he later identified as Murano, in a terrified state, “crying,” “upset,” and “frazzled.” Gibbons observed that her face was red and puffy, and that she had visible red marks on her neck.
*448 [¶ 5] Gibbons asked Murano what had happened, and she responded that Robinson had hit her and that he was in the bedroom. 2 Gibbons went to the bedroom, where he found the door locked. He ordered Robinson to open the door, and when Robinson complied, Gibbons arrested him for assaulting Murano. According to Gibbons, Robinson was shirtless, completely covered with sweat, and appeared to be “wild eyed” and “maniacal.”
[¶ 6] Gibbons took Robinson outside, got some paperwork, returned to Murano’s apartment, and spoke to Murano again regarding the incidents of that night. At this point, anywhere from three to twelve minutes had passed since he first spoke to Murano when he arrived at her apartment. Murano was still crying and appeared terrified and “very, very upset.” She again told Gibbons that Robinson had hit her and this time, more specifically, that he had “thrown [her] onto the living room floor” and had “punched, kneed, kicked and choked” her. 3
[¶ 7] Before trial, Murano died in an unrelated car accident. At trial, the State placed into evidence several photographs showing Murano’s injuries from the night in question along with the testimony of Steven Haskins and Officer Gibbons. Gibbons’s testimony and the photographs demonstrated that Murano had swelling around her eyes, a strangulation mark on her throat, a small abrasion on her back, and several large bumps on her head. Over objections, Gibbons also testified regarding Murano’s statement that Robinson had “punched, kneed, kicked and choked” her. The jury convicted Robinson of assault, 4 and this appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Excited Utterances
[¶8] Robinson first challenges the admissibility of Murano’s statement to Officer Gibbons on the ground that the statement was inadmissible as hearsay.
[¶ 9] A hearsay statement is an out-of-court statement offered at trial to prove the truth of the matter asserted. M.R. Evid. 801. 5 Hearsay statements are not admissible as evidence unless they fall within a specific exception to the prohibition. M.R. Evid. 802. An “excited utterance” is such an exception. M.R. Evid. 808(2); see also Fed.R.Evid. 803(2).
[¶ 10] A court may admit a hearsay statement as an “excited utterance” if the court finds “(1) that a startling event occurred; (2) that the hearsay statement related to the startling event; and (3) that the hearsay statement was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by that event.”
State v. McLaughlin,
[¶ 11] The purpose behind admitting “excited utterances,” despite their hearsay nature, is that witnessing or experiencing a startling event produces a state of excitement which “stills the reflective faculties and negatives a purpose to fabricate evidence.” M.R. Evid. 803(2) advisers’ note. Thus, a crucial question in determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance is “how long the state of excitement may be found to last.” Id.
[¶ 12] “There is no bright-line time limit for the requisite state of excitement.”
McLaughlin,
*450
[¶ 13] Robinson does not dispute that there is competent evidence in. the record of (1) a startling event, and (2) a connection between the event and Murano’s statements to the officer. He contends, however, that Murano’s statement that she was “thrown onto the living room floor and ... punched, kneed, kicked and choked” was not made while she was still under the stress of the startling events,
see State v. Dube,
[¶ 14] Contrary to Robinson’s cóntentions, however, three to twelve minutes was not too much time for Murano to have remained under the stress of Robinson’s attack.
See McLaughlin,
[¶ 15] Robinson contends, in addition, that the court erred when it denied his request to voir dire Officer Gibbons before the court admitted the officer’s recitation of Murano’s statement. Robinson did not seek to voir dire Gibbons until after he testified on direct examination that “maybe” three to four minutes had passed between the time he first arrived at Mura-no’s apartment and the time when he returned after placing Robinson under arrest. At that point, Robinson sought to voir dire the officer to determine the exact number of minutes that had passed during the intervening time. Having already heard Gibbons’s estimate of “maybe” three to four minutes, the court denied Robinson’s request for voir dire. Because Officer Gibbons later stated, on cross-examination, that a longer period of time— anywhere from six to twelve minutes— could have passed during that interval, Robinson argues that the court erred when it declined to allow him to voir dire Officer Gibbons.
[¶ 16] The passage of time is an important factor in determining whether a statement qualifies within the excited utterance exception. MccoRmick on Evidenoe 207 (John W. Strong ed., 5th ed.1999) (1954). It is not, however, the controlling factor.
Id.; McLaughlin,
B. Confrontation Clause
[¶ 17] Robinson next contends that the “court’s admission of hearsay evidence also violated [his] constitutional right to confront his accuser.” The U.S. Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const, amend. VI;
see also
Me. Const, art. I, § 6. “It is well settled, however, that the confrontation clause does not require the exclusion of all hearsay evidence.”
State v. Francis,
[¶ 18] The excited utterance exception is firmly rooted in our jurisprudence. For more than a century, we have recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule for excited utterances.
See State v. Wagner,
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[¶ 19] Robinson finally contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of assault. When reviewing a criminal defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether a fact-finder rationally could find every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Black,
[¶ 20] Contrary to Robinson’s contentions, the jury could have rationally concluded that he “intentionally ... cause[d] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to [Murano].” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207. Competent evidence in the record *452 shows that (1) Murano and Robinson were in their apartment on the night in question; (2) Haskins, who was Murano’s next door neighbor, heard an angry male voice repeatedly yelling at a fearful female voice, causing him to believe that the female was getting “beat up”; (3) whéii the police arrived, Murano stated that Robinson had hit her, and later, more specifically, that Robinson had “punched, kneed, kicked and choked” her; and (4) Officer Gibbons’s observations and photographs of Murano showed visible bodily injuries, which were consistent with Murano’s statement that Robinson had hit her.
[¶ 21] In sum, we conclude that the court did not err in admitting Murano’s excited utterance, and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of assault.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. This was Robinson's second trial. In the first trial, the jury failed to agree on a verdict, and the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Crowley, J.) declared a mistrial.
. Robinson does not challenge the admission of this statement.
. The court overruled Robinson’s objection to this testimony and also denied Robinson's request to voir dire Officer Gibbons on the exact number of minutes that had passed between Murano's first and second statement.
. Robinson had three prior assault convictions. Thus, the assault was alleged as a Class C offense. Indictment (Nov. 5, 1998). The court sentenced Robinson to the Department of Corrections for four years, with all but one year of the sentence suspended, and placed Robinson on probation for four years.
.Certain types of out-of-court statements offered for their truth are excluded from the definition of hearsay statements. See M.R. Evid. 801(d).
.
See State v. Spencer,
.
See Spencer,
.
See State v. Lafrance,
.
See Leone,
.
See Spencer,
. The defendant's reliance on
State v. Barnies,
. Other state courts that have examined the "excited utterance” exception have regularly concluded that the passage of time, although an important factor, is not the controlling factor.
See, e.g., State v. Harris,