In Davis v. State, the defendant had been convicted of two counts of capital murder. One of the victims was permitted to offer to a witness and to a paramedic a detailed story of what the defendant did to her with respect to dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire. She appeared to be concerned about leaving her children, and the paramedic indicated that it was clear to him that she would not survive. The defendant contended that the victim's dying declaration should not have been admitted. The Supreme Court of Florida concluded that

A. the dying declaration was properly admitted because the victim clearly understood that she would not live very long, and the fact that the defendant could not cross-examine her did not prevent the use of the dying declaration.

B. dying declarations in the state of Florida could no longer be admitted against the defendants because there was no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant due to the death of the declarant at an earlier time.

C. dying declarations are admissible in Florida courts because they are not considered hearsay.

D. this particular dying declaration should not have been admitted because the victim did not utter the fact that she knew she was going to die quickly.