In State v. Parks, 211 Ariz. 19, 116 P.3d 631 (App. 2005) the Court rejected this argument and held that "depending on the circumstances, some excited utterances will be testimonial, others will not." Id. at , P41, 116 P.3d at 640. In Parks, we acknowledged that "a statement may be testimonial under Crawford if the declarant would reasonably expect it to be used prosecutorially or if it were made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe the statement would be available for use at a later trial." Id. at, P36, 116 P.3d at 639. "While a declarant's emotional state may temporarily 'still' reflection, such a declarant may nevertheless reasonably appreciate or expect that his statement will have an impact on whether an arrest is made, charges are brought or guilt is attributed." Id.