State of Maine v. Richard J. Kimball, 117 A.3d 585

Background

On Sept. 15, 2013 the victim called 9-1-1 reporting she had been beaten by her husband, Richard Kimball; police arrived minutes later and found Kimball outside the house and the victim visibly injured.
An EMT examined the victim and she told him she had been “grabbed in the head and was slammed into the floor multiple times”; a 9-1-1 recording captured the victim in distress describing the attack.
Kimball was charged with domestic violence assault; at trial the victim, though subpoenaed and briefly jailed for contempt, refused to answer substantive questions.
The trial court admitted the 9-1-1 recording and the victim’s statements to the EMT over Kimball’s Confrontation Clause objections; Kimball was convicted and sentenced.
On appeal Kimball argued the statements were testimonial and therefore inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment and Maine Constitution despite fitting hearsay exceptions (excited utterance and medical diagnosis/treatment).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 9‑1‑1 recording (Confrontation Clause)	State: recording was nontestimonial because it described an ongoing emergency and dispatcher’s questions were aimed at police assistance	Kimball: call was testimonial because he was not an immediate threat and victim was locked inside, so statements aimed at proving past events	Held: recording nontestimonial and admissible — caller faced ongoing emergency, demeanor and content showed need for assistance, dispatcher’s questions were for resolving emergency (Davis factors applied)
Admission of 9‑1‑1 content under hearsay rules	State: content qualifies as excited utterance (M.R. Evid. 803(2))	Kimball: did not preserve hearsay objection at trial; appellate review limited to obvious error	Held: excited utterance supported admission; no obvious error given timing, distress, and proximity to the event
Admission of victim’s statements to EMT (Confrontation Clause)	State: statements were made for purposes of medical diagnosis/treatment (M.R. Evid. 803(4)) and thus nontestimonial	Kimball: statements were made after police secured scene and thus were testimonial evidence for prosecution	Held: admissible under medical-treatment exception and nontestimonial — statements were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and EMT’s questioning was not investigatory
Interaction between hearsay exceptions and Crawford line	State: hearsay exception evidence can still be barred if testimonial; must apply Davis/Crawford analysis	Kimball: Crawford/Davis bars these prior statements despite hearsay exceptions	Held: Court applied two-step test (hearsay? then testimonial?) and concluded statements were nontestimonial so Confrontation Clause not violated

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (confrontation guarantee bars testimonial out-of-court statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements in emergency 9-1-1 context)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (discusses testimonial nature of forensic affidavits)
State v. Ahmed, 909 A.2d 1011 (Maine case affirming use of excited utterance and 9-1-1 content in domestic violence prosecution)
State v. Rickett, 967 A.2d 671 (Maine case applying Davis factors to 9-1-1 calls and redaction of testimonial portions)
State v. Metzger, 999 A.2d 947 (Maine case on ongoing emergency scope and testimonial analysis)
State v. Robinson, 773 A.2d 445 (Maine case upholding excited utterance admission shortly after assault)
State v. Tayman, 960 A.2d 1151 (Maine case describing two-step hearsay/testimonial inquiry)
State v. McLaughlin, 642 A.2d 173 (Maine case upholding admission of near-contemporaneous statements after assault)