LEGREE v. the STATE., 344 Ga. App. 793

On May 23, 2013, a 9-1-1 call from the victim (Legree’s wife) reported that Legree had just choked her and she was hiding outside; the call was recorded.
A responding officer arrived minutes later, found Legree outside, then spoke separately with the victim inside and observed bruising consistent with choking.
The officer also spoke with a minor child eyewitness who described seeing Legree on top of the victim with his hands around her throat.
The State arrested Legree and sought to admit the 9-1-1 recording as a business record and the officer’s testimony recounting statements by the victim and child.
At the bench trial neither the victim nor the child testified and the State made no showing of their unavailability; the trial court admitted the 9-1-1 call (as non‑testimonial/present sense impression) and the officer’s testimony about the victim and child statements.
The trial court convicted Legree of family violence battery; on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Legree)	Held
Whether admission of victim and child statements to the officer violated the Confrontation Clause	Statements to officer were non‑testimonial or otherwise admissible hearsay (present sense impression); no Confrontation Clause issue	Statements were testimonial and inadmissible without declarants being unavailable and subject to prior cross‑examination	Reversed: statements to the officer were testimonial; State did not show unavailability, so admission violated Confrontation Clause
Admissibility of 9‑1‑1 recording	9‑1‑1 call was a business record and non‑testimonial (ongoing emergency), admissible as present sense impression	Recording should be excluded or treated as testimonial	9‑1‑1 call was non‑testimonial and admissible under present sense impression exception; trial court correctly admitted it
Harmless error / sufficiency of evidence	Admission of other evidence (9‑1‑1 and officer testimony re injuries) supported conviction; error was harmless	Error in admitting officer‑recounted statements was not harmless because trial court relied on them	Error was not shown to be harmless; conviction reversed and case remanded for new trial
Ineffective assistance / other claims	(Addressed below only if needed)	Raised but not reached on appeal due to reversal on confrontation ground	Not addressed — appellate court declined to reach remaining arguments

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statement rule: testimonial hearsay inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements based on whether primary purpose was to enable police assistance for an ongoing emergency)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (analyzes primary purpose objectively, considering circumstances and participants’ statements/actions)
Pitts v. State, 272 Ga. App. 182 (2005) (victim statements to deputies after arrival held testimonial where no ongoing emergency)
Moody v. State, 277 Ga. 676 (2004) (statements to police investigating a crime may be testimonial)
Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 540 (2008) (non‑testimonial statements are governed by normal hearsay rules; present sense impression exception discussed)
Owens v. State, 329 Ga. App. 455 (2014) (present sense impressions admissible whether or not declarant is available)
Philpot v. State, 309 Ga. App. 196 (2011) (statements made during ongoing emergency may be non‑testimonial depending on circumstances)
Batten v. State, 295 Ga. 442 (2014) (standard of review for bench trial convictions)
Freeman v. State, 329 Ga. App. 429 (2014) (erroneous Confrontation Clause admission does not bar retrial under double jeopardy where evidence otherwise sufficient)