¶1Appellate, accompanied by his son, Robert, and another man arrived at 11:00 P.M. at a VFW Post bar where they were denied drinks. A fight began between appellant and a man named Lyons who had refused to identify appellant as a member of the Post. A second fight began between the son, Robert, the bartender and a Mr. Conner. At some point, Robert, made the statement to the occupants of the bar that “you better watch out, my dad’s a killer.”
¶2Robert withdrew from the fray and appellant continued the fight with the bar patrons until he ended the matter by producing a gun and shooting William C. Lyons and Hugh M. Murphy.
¶3Convicted of aggravated battery upon two men, attempted aggravated battery upon a third and carrying a concealed firearm, appellant appeals asserting error in admitting the son’s statement as inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant.
¶4Irrelevant it may have been to prove the victim’s apprehensive state of mind but that factor was proven when appellant pulled his gun and subsequently shot two of the men. Admissible it was under a res gestae or excited utterance theory. In any event, in light of the testimony, it was harmless to the appellant’s case.
¶5Appellant now challenges the prosecutor’s closing argument in part, but no such objection was made at the time of trial. There is no suggestion that the questioned statement reaches the status of fundamental error.
¶6The judgment of the trial court is
¶7AFFIRMED.