DANNY ANDRADE v. UNITED STATES, 106 A.3d 386

In Nov. 2012 Shawnice Reed called 911 reporting that her boyfriend, Danny Andrade, had "been putting his hands on [her]," that she had locked herself in a bathroom, and that Andrade left on a bike.
Officer James Love arrived within minutes, found Reed upset (crying, stuttering, shaking), questioned her inside the living room, and Reed described an earlier assault (pushed down steps, grabbed by hair, hit in head/neck, grabbed at throat).
Officer Love believed Andrade was not in the residence when he questioned Reed; officers later arrested Andrade that evening when they located him outside the residence.
At trial Reed did not testify; the prosecution introduced Reed’s out-of-court statements to Officer Love (and the 911 call) as evidence of the assault.
The trial court admitted Reed’s statements on the ground they were non-testimonial because they were made to address an ongoing emergency; Andrade was convicted of assault.
On appeal the court considered whether Reed’s statements to Officer Love were testimonial under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and whether any erroneous admission was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reed's statements to Officer Love were testimonial (Confrontation Clause)	U.S.: statements were non-testimonial because questioning aimed to address an ongoing emergency	Andrade: statements were testimonial because the emergency had ended and questioning was to investigate past events	Held: Statements to Officer Love were testimonial; Govt did not meet its burden to show primary purpose was addressing an ongoing emergency
Whether admission of Reed's testimonial statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	U.S.: error (if any) was harmless given other evidence (911 call)	Andrade: admission was prejudicial because Officer Love's account was the crux of prosecution's case	Held: Admission was not harmless; conviction reversed and case remanded

Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (framework for deciding whether statements are testimonial by assessing primary purpose of questioning)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (statements non-testimonial when primary purpose is obtaining aid to meet ongoing emergency)
Frye v. United States, 86 A.3d 568 (D.C. 2014) (government bears burden to prove statements were non-testimonial; contrasted facts where emergency existed)
Graure v. United States, 18 A.3d 743 (D.C. 2011) (standard of review for testimonial determinations)
Drayton v. United States, 877 A.2d 145 (D.C. 2005) (erroneous admission of testimonial statements requires reversal where trial court relied on them)
Lewis v. United States, 938 A.2d 771 (D.C. 2007) (erroneous admission of testimonial statements not harmless requires reversal)