In People v. Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 419 NYS2d 45, 392 N.E.2d 1229 (1979) the Court of Appeals recognized: One of the better-known exceptions to the injunction against the reception of hearsay testimony permits the introduction of a spontaneous declaration or excited utterance - - made contemporaneously or immediately after a startling event - - which asserts the circumstances of that occasion as observed by the declarant. Underlying this exception is the assumption that a person under the influence of the excitement precipitated by an external startling event will lack the reflective capacity essential for fabrication and, accordingly, an utterance he makes will be spontaneous and trustworthy. Since the utterance is made as a direct result of sensory perception during that brief period when considerations of self-interest cannot be immediately brought to bear, the declaration may be admitted into evidence as expressing the true belief of the declarant as to the facts observed. In providing some guidance to the trial court in determining whether or not a statement qualifies as an excited utterance, the court noted: The court must ascertain whether, at the time the utterance was made, the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by an external event sufficient to still his reflective faculties, thereby preventing opportunity for deliberation which might lead the declarant to be untruthful. The court must assess not only the nature of the startling event and the amount of time which has elapsed between the occurrence and the statement, but also the activities of the declarant in the interim to ascertain if there was significant opportunity to deviate from the truth. Above all, the decisive factor is whether the surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection.