State v. Romney, 1 CA-CR 16-0326

Officers responded to a vehicle rollover; Romney and passenger D.H. were outside the overturned car; D.H. later died from his injuries.
Initial scene observations: driver’s seat belt was unused, passenger belt used; D.H. had marks consistent with wearing a lap belt.
At the scene, Officer Aldridge questioned D.H. within about five minutes while medical personnel were treating him; D.H. said Romney was driving and that he wore his seat belt.
Romney gave conflicting statements about who drove; both occupants had alcohol in their systems; Romney’s blood draw (pursuant to warrant) later showed BAC .229.
D.H. could not be cross-examined at trial (he was deceased); the trial court admitted Aldridge’s testimony about D.H.’s statements as excited utterances and nontestimonial.
Romney was convicted of manslaughter and appealed, arguing the admission of D.H.’s statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether D.H.’s statements to police were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause	State: statements were nontestimonial because made during an ongoing emergency to enable police/medical response	Romney: statements were testimonial and should be excluded because they implicated her in a crime and were used at trial	Court held statements were nontestimonial; primary purpose was addressing an ongoing emergency, so Confrontation Clause not violated

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (announcing testimonial statement rule under the Sixth Amendment)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements based on whether interrogation addresses an ongoing emergency)
State v. King, 212 Ariz. 372 (Arizona appellate standard: de novo review for Confrontation Clause claims)
State v. Alvarez, 213 Ariz. 467 (standard for viewing facts in the light most favorable to sustaining a jury verdict)