Jarvis McDavid v. State, 10-15-00112-CR

Jarvis McDavid was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after his wife, LaToya, alleged he held a knife to her throat, pulled her hair, struck her, and threatened her.
A 911 call placed by LaToya’s mother after receiving a text from LaToya prompted dispatch to the scene; the mother did not testify at trial.
The State introduced the 911 recording over McDavid’s Confrontation Clause objection; the dispatcher testified about the call and that officers were dispatched.
On direct, LaToya repeatedly denied remembering details and insisted McDavid “wouldn’t do” such conduct; the prosecutor elicited testimony suggesting prior family‑violence treatment and prior assaults.
The trial court admitted both the 911 call and limited testimony about prior bad acts; a jury convicted McDavid and he was sentenced to 15 years.
McDavid appealed arguing (1) the 911 call contained inadmissible testimonial statements violating Crawford and (2) erroneous admission of extraneous‑offense evidence prejudiced him.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 911 call under Confrontation Clause	The 911 recording contained testimonial statements from the caller and admission denied McDavid his right to confront the witness	The call was offered only to show that a call was placed and that police were dispatched; it was a non‑testimonial emergency call for help	Court held statements were non‑testimonial (an emergency call seeking assistance) and admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause; no abuse of discretion in admitting the call
Admission of extraneous‑offense evidence / prior bad acts	Admission of prior family‑violence acts created a prejudicial "bad man" influence and was not invited by defense	Prosecution argued LaToya’s testimony opened the door to prior acts and the substance was cumulative of recorded statements admitted without objection	Court assumed, without deciding, any error was harmless/cured because LaToya largely denied remembering and the same substance appeared in admitted video statements; no reversible error

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial‑statements rule requiring unavailability and prior cross‑examination)
Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (reliability and testing of out‑of‑court statements)
Ruth v. State, 167 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App.) (framework for analyzing whether statements, including 911 calls, are testimonial)
Kearney v. State, 181 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. App.) (reviewing admission of 911 calls under Crawford)
Spencer v. State, 162 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.) (testimonial threshold inquiry)
Pollard v. State, 392 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.) ("whether a statement is testimonial is a question of law")
Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App.) (testimonial analysis principles)
De La Paz v. State, 273 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. Crim. App.) (testimonial statement discussion)
McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Lane v. State, 151 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App.) (error cured where same evidence admitted elsewhere without objection)
Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. Crim. App.) (overruling objection not reversible when same evidence was received without objection)