State v. King, 2013 Ohio 1694

Defendant-appellant Matthew King appeals his conviction for one count of assault, a first-degree misdemeanor.
The incident occurred March 2, 2012, at about 8:41 a.m. when police responded to a fight reported behind a Dayton residence.
Dreama Allen, the female victim, told officers she had been choked by King and showed injuries.
King appeared at the scene; he did not admit to striking Allen; he was charged with domestic violence and assault in municipal court.
Allen failed to appear at trial; the court found King not guilty of domestic violence and guilty of assault; King timely appealed on the Confrontation Clause issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Allen’s initial statements violated the Confrontation Clause.	King argues the statements were testimonial and were improperly admitted.	King contends the statements were non-testimonial and admissible as excited utterances.	The court overruled King’s assignment of error; admission not error.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 ((2004)) (testimonial statements require confrontation unless unavailable)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 ((2006)) (defines testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
State v. McDaniel, 2011-Ohio-6326 ((2d Dist. Montgomery)) (non-testimonial statements at scene; excited utterance analysis applied)
State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6967 ((6th Dist. Lucas)) (excited utterance admissibility in similar context)
State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 ((1978)) (excited utterance criteria; admissibility)