Is there any case law supporting a finding that a comment made by a defendant to a witness was a spontaneous statement under the hearsay rule?

It is true that the trial court's rationale may have been flawed, i.e., there is no hard and fast requirement that the recipient of the statement witness the same startling event as the declarant. But, we are obligated to uphold a trial court's evidentiary ruling if it is correct on any theory. (People v. Fruits (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 188, 205.) The record is simply insufficient to support a determination that the trial court erred by ruling defendant's comment to Smith fell within the meaning of the spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule.