State Of Washington, Respondent/cr-appellant v. Jason T. Garcia, Appellant/cr-respondent, 73740-6

On October 12, 2014, motel guests Brett Losey and Shana Morcom were robbed at gunpoint in their room; Losey called 911 shortly after the robbers left.
During the 911 call Losey described the armed robber he knew as "J.T.", reported being held at gunpoint, and expressed fear he might be shot for "snitchin'."
Police later arrested Jason "J.T." Garcia and found debit cards stolen from the victims on him; Morcom identified Garcia in a photo array and in person.
Losey became unavailable to testify at trial due to hospitalization, and the trial court admitted the 911 recording as an excited utterance and nontestimonial.
A jury convicted Garcia of first-degree robbery (while armed and on community custody), second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm, and second-degree possession of stolen property; Garcia appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garcia)	Held
Admissibility as an excited utterance (ER 803(a)(2))	Losey’s 911 statements were contemporaneous reactions to a startling event and thus admissible as excited utterances.	Losey had time to reflect after the robbery; his statements were not made while under the stress of excitement.	Court: Admissible — objective evidence (tone, memory lapses, fear of being shot) showed Losey remained under stress; no abuse of discretion.
Confrontation Clause — whether 911 statements were testimonial	911 call was to seek immediate police assistance; primary purpose was addressing an ongoing emergency, so statements were nontestimonial.	The call primarily related past facts for prosecution, making the statements testimonial and barred without cross-examination.	Court: Nontestimonial — under the primary-purpose test (Davis/Bryant/Clark), the call aimed to resolve an ongoing emergency; admission did not violate the Sixth Amendment.
Double conviction (robbery + possession of same stolen property)	Both convictions supported by evidence; court should affirm both.	One cannot be both the thief and receiver; convictions for robbery and possession of the same property cannot both stand.	Court: Vacate possession-of-stolen-property conviction; remit to trial court to vacate that conviction.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes confrontation clause concern for testimonial hearsay)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (primary-purpose test for distinguishing testimonial vs. nontestimonial 911 statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (objective inquiry into whether an ongoing emergency exists)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (clarifies ‘‘primary purpose’’ and out-of-court substitute inquiry)
State v. Young, 160 Wn.2d 799 (elements for excited utterance in Washington)
United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544 (instructions and sequencing when charging both theft and receipt)
State v. Melick, 131 Wn. App. 835 (vacatur of possession conviction where jury convicted both robbery and possession of same property)