Anthony Flores v. State, 07-15-00075-CR

Anthony Flores was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon for robbing Lamar Johnson at a gas station; Lamar testified Flores brandished what he believed was a shotgun.
Lamar delayed reporting the robbery; several minutes after the incident a store clerk called 911 and the clerk’s recorded statements were admitted at trial though the clerk did not testify.
Flores confessed to the robbery but claimed the object was a taped stick made to look like a gun; physical evidence tying Flores to a weapon was limited to a single spent shotgun shell found later in the car he had used.
The State used the clerk’s 911 call to corroborate Lamar’s testimony about the presence of a shotgun; the prosecutor emphasized the clerk’s report in closing argument.
Flores argues the clerk’s out-of-court 911 statements were testimonial, violating his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because the clerk did not testify and was not cross-examined.

Issue	Flores's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the clerk’s 911 statements were "testimonial" under the Confrontation Clause	The clerk’s call reported a completed crime (robbery occurred minutes earlier) and was intended to memorialize the event and summon police, so it was testimonial and its admission violated Flores’s confrontation rights	The call occurred while a potentially armed robber remained at large and thus addressed an ongoing emergency, making the statements nontestimonial under Davis/Bryant	Not decided in this brief — appellant preserved the claim and asks the appellate court to find reversible error and remand
Whether admission of the clerk’s statements was harmful	The clerk’s call materially corroborated Lamar’s contested testimony about a shotgun and likely moved the jury to find a deadly weapon, producing a reasonable possibility of harm requiring reversal	The State argues the evidence was sufficient otherwise and that any error was harmless	Flores contends error was harmful; resolution pending on appeal

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by absent witnesses are barred by the Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial statements from nontestimonial emergency statements; primary-purpose test)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary-purpose analysis considers victim’s condition and whether statements were made to address an ongoing emergency)
Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factors relevant to ongoing-emergency analysis under Texas law)
Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (harmless error / reasonable possibility standard for Confrontation Clause violations)
Wilson v. State, 296 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref’d) (demeanor and stress of declarant relevant to primary-purpose inquiry)