Frank Eugene Villarreal v. State, 398 P.3d 512

Villarreal punched Robert Flores at a Sinclair truck stop and later ran over Flores’ leg; Flores was transported to the hospital with a comminuted right tibia/fibula fracture.
Flores refused to cooperate with prosecution and did not testify at trial despite subpoena and arrest warrant; medical personnel (an EMT and the treating physician) testified about statements Flores made while being treated.
Villarreal was convicted by a jury of multiple charges including (1) battery for the punch and (2) aggravated assault and battery for running over Flores. Villarreal appealed.
On appeal he argued (a) admission of Flores’ out-of-court statements to medical providers violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because Flores did not testify, and (b) insufficient evidence supported the battery conviction because there was no proof of bodily injury from the punch.
Trial testimony showed Flores was in substantial pain from the broken leg; EMT testified Flores said he had been struck by a vehicle and gave the name "Frank V." The physician testified Flores reported being struck and run over; neither medical witness described additional injuries from the punch.

Issue	Villarreal’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether admitting Flores’ statements to EMT and physician violated the Confrontation Clause when Flores did not testify	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because statements identifying assailant and cause were testimonial and Flores was unavailable	Statements were non‑testimonial medical-history statements made during treatment; trial record supported Flores’ unavailability	No plain error; statements were non‑testimonial (primary purpose was medical treatment), so Confrontation Clause not violated
Whether the State proved bodily injury element of battery for the punch	Insufficient evidence that punch caused bodily injury; no testimony or records showing injury from the punch	Jury could infer bodily injury from testimony that Villarreal hit/punched Flores and from common knowledge that punches cause pain	Reversed and acquitted on battery charge for insufficient evidence of bodily injury

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (statements are testimonial when objective circumstances show primary purpose is to establish past events for prosecution rather than to resolve an ongoing emergency)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test is objective; purpose assessed from statements, actions, and circumstances)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (prosecution must show witness unavailability despite good‑faith efforts to produce witness; reasonableness of efforts is context‑specific)