In People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, the California Supreme Court stated, "'The foundation for this exception is that if the declarations are made under the immediate influence of the occurrence to which they relate, they are deemed sufficiently trustworthy to be presented to the jury. . . . . The basis for this circumstantial probability of trustworthiness is "that in the stress of nervous excitement the reflective faculties may be stilled and the utterance may become the unreflecting and sincere expression of one's actual impressions and belief."' . Whether the requirements of the spontaneous statement exception are satisfied in any given case is, in general, largely a question of fact. . The determination of the question is vested in the court, not the jury. . In performing this task, the court 'necessarily exercises some element of discretion . . . .'" For the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule to apply, "'(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2) the utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance; and (3) the utterance must relate to the circumstance of the occurrence preceding it.'" (Poggi, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 318.)