State v. Starr, 344 P.3d 100

Victim placed a <30-second 9-1-1 call from a motel saying her husband pushed her; officers arrived minutes later and found visible facial injuries.
Officers DelCastillo and Clough asked what happened; victim said her boyfriend had beaten her and described being pushed into a curb.
Victim later provided additional background (a racial remark at a bar) but did not appear at two trial dates and relocated out of state; state attempted phone contact, mailed materials, arranged travel/hotel, and attempted to serve a subpoena.
Defendant was arrested after a witness (Murphy) saw the victim on the ground and observed defendant later threaten others with a metal pipe; defendant was charged with attempted first-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, menacing, and domestic-violence assault.
At trial the state introduced the 9-1-1 recording and the victim’s statements to officers under OEC 804(1)(e) as hearsay by an unavailable declarant; defendant objected on confrontation-clause grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state proved the victim was "unavailable" under Article I, §11 / OEC 804(1)(e)	State: multiple phone contacts, mailed materials, arranged travel/hotel, and attempted subpoena show good-faith efforts	Defendant: state failed to demonstrate diligent, non‑futile efforts to locate victim; unavailability not proven	Court: affirmed unavailability — totality of efforts reasonable; victim’s transient status and refusal to cooperate supported finding
Whether victim’s initial statements (9‑1‑1 and to officers) were testimonial under the Sixth Amendment	State: initial 9‑1‑1 and immediate officer statements were nontestimonial (emergency‑focused)	Defendant: statements to officers were testimonial and admission violated Confrontation Clause	Court: accepted state concession that some later officer statements were testimonial but treated earlier 9‑1‑1 and immediate statements as either nontestimonial or harmless if testimonial
If admission violated Sixth Amendment, whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	State: testimonial portions were cumulative of admissible 9‑1‑1 call, officers’ observations, Murphy’s testimony, and defendant’s admissions	Defendant: admission affected his confrontation rights and may have influenced jury	Court: any Sixth Amendment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative evidence and strength of prosecution’s case

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (establishes two‑part Roberts test for admissibility of unavailable declarant’s out‑of‑court statements)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sixth Amendment bars admission of testimonial statements by absent witness unless prior cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements based on primary purpose — ongoing emergency vs. proving past events)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for Confrontation Clause errors)
State v. Cook, 340 Or. 530 (Oregon sequence for addressing state and federal confrontation claims)
State v. Nielsen, 316 Or. 611 (Oregon applies Roberts test under Article I, §11)
State v. Camarena, 344 Or. 28 (9‑1‑1 statements may be nontestimonial; later testimonial statements can be harmless where cumulative)
State v. Anderson, 42 Or. App. 29 (what constitutes diligent effort to locate missing/transient witnesses)
State v. George, 146 Or. App. 449 (attendance efforts reasonable where witness likely fled area and further investigation would be futile)