{¶ 15} After hearing legal arguments, the trial court determined that I.K.'s statements to the Children's Services investigator were admissible as an excited utterance. In so doing, the trial court relied upon several Ohio cases: In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433, State v. Hohman (March 23, 1990), 5th Dist. No. CA-89-9, and State v. Duncan (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 215. {¶ 16} Thereafter, Appellant's case proceeded to jury trial on April 20, 2009.

Thus, although the statement was not contemporaneous with its exciting cause, we find that the short passage of time that occurred between the cause and the statement was not long enough for a boy of M.L.'s age to regain his reflective faculties under part two of the test. In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.) ("The scrutiny for the child declarant is less than that for an adult. The liberal scrutiny is based on the court's recognition that young children are more trustworthy because of their limited reflective powers.").

See, e.g., In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 12–18 (8th Dist.) (statement of three-year-old child made while calmly playing with his trucks held admissible as an excited utterance). Based on the limited passage of time and the evidence that S.M. was not acting normally around her mother, the trial court could reasonably determine that she made the statement while she was still under the stress of the excitement caused by the crime.

According to the mother, M.S.'s private area was red and the SANE nurse testified that injury to the genital area heals quickly in children. Regardless, as we explained in In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), when the abuse occurred is not dispositive in determining whether M.S.'s statement is an excited utterance. We stated as follows:

The liberal scrutiny is based on the * * * recognition that young children are more trustworthy because of their limited reflective powers." In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433 (8th Dist.), ¶13, citing Taylor, supra, 66 Ohio St.3d at 304; State v. Wagner, 30 Ohio App.3d 261, 264, 508 N.E.2d 164 (1986). As one court noted with respect to young children:

Additionally, we note that the above test has been liberally applied to out-of-court statements made by child declarants who are alleged victims of sexual abuse. In re DM., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 793, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433. The reason for liberalizing the scrutiny of this test is in recognition that young children are more trustworthy than adult declarants because of their limited reflection powers.

Courts have stated that inherent in the trial court's analysis is whether competent counsel was appointed for the child. See In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433, citing In re Johnson (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 38, 665 N.E.2d 247; In re Nation (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 763, 573 N.E.2d 1155. See In re Dunham (Nov. 7, 1997), Hamilton App. Nos.

The excited utterance hearsay exception is treated differently when the declarant is an alleged sexually abused child; as we have already established, the test is extremely liberal. In re D.M. (2004), 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 822 N.E.2d 433 at ¶ 13 citing State v. Shoop (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 462, 472, 622 N.E.2d 665. See, also, Taylor, supra, 66 Ohio St.3d at 304, 612 N.E.2d 316.

, testimony and video evidence confirm that it was "out of the blue," and cases involving young children focus on the spontaneity of the statement, not the progression of time after the startling event. In re D.M., 2004-Ohio-5858, 822 N.E.2d 433 (8th Dist). See State v. Wagner, 30 Ohio App.3d 261, 508 N.E.2d 164 (8th Dist. 1986) (three-year-old victim's statement made calmly the day after the event while mother was giving him a bath was an excited utterance); In re DM. (child made spontaneous statement while calmly playing with his trucks the day after the incident); State v. Duke, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 52604, 1988 WL 88862 (Aug. 25, 1988) (spontaneous statement of a three-year-old child ten days after incident constituted an excited utterance).

Courts readily accept the fact that young children use a variety of words to describe their genitals. See, e.g. McConnell, supra; In re D.M., 158 Ohio App.3d 780, 2004-Ohio-585; Dever, supra. The jury was instructed as to the elements of the offense and the findings necessary to a verdict, and the jury was polled at the request of defense counsel.