United States v. Estes, 985 F.3d 99

Background

On Nov. 13, 2017, Scott Estes loaded and showed a stolen, loaded firearm to his girlfriend, Katherine Hutchins, and pointed it at her; she believed he was a felon and possibly high.
Hutchins called 911 when Estes briefly exited the vehicle; during the call she described the present danger, asked for immediate help, pretended to speak to a credit-card company while the dispatcher played along, and gave location details and Estes' name and birthdate.
Prior to the 911 call Hutchins exchanged texts with the homeowner confirming the gun was stolen and asked others to call the police.
The Government moved in limine to admit a redacted 911 recording without calling Hutchins; the district court ruled the statements were non-testimonial and admissible under hearsay exceptions (Fed. R. Evid. 803(2), (1), (3)).
Estes entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the right to appeal the in limine ruling; he argued the 911 statements were testimonial (triggering the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation), or alternatively that admissibility failed because of lack of a hearsay exception and an alleged face-to-face confrontation right.
The First Circuit affirmed: the 911 statements were non-testimonial, the Confrontation Clause did not apply, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recording (excited-utterance exception at minimum).

Issues

Issue	Government's Argument	Estes' Argument	Held
Are Hutchins' 911 statements "testimonial" under Crawford/Davis?	Statements were non-testimonial because made during an ongoing emergency to obtain police assistance.	Statements were testimonial because time had passed since the gun was pointed and Hutchins had investigated how Estes got the gun.	Non-testimonial — call occurred in real time about a continuing emergency; Cadieux factors favor non-testimonial.
Does the Confrontation Clause require face-to-face confrontation for these statements?	Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements, so it is not implicated.	Estes claimed an independent right to face-to-face confrontation even if statements were non-testimonial.	Rejected — Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements; no confrontation right for non-testimonial hearsay.
Were the 911 statements admissible under a hearsay exception?	Admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) (excited utterance); also 803(1) and 803(3).	No applicable hearsay exception; admission was improper.	No abuse of discretion — excited-utterance exception applies (and the court agreed the other exceptions also fit).
Did the caller’s pre-call texts or the lapse of time negate the "ongoing emergency" analysis?	Prior texts and timing do not negate ongoing emergency; gun remained accessible and danger continued.	Waiting 20–30 minutes and investigative texts show the emergency had ended, making statements testimonial.	Rejected — objective circumstances (gun still present; caller fearful; dispatcher’s questions) show an ongoing emergency.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (established that the Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial from non-testimonial 911 statements based on whether primary purpose is to resolve an ongoing emergency)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (focus on objective circumstances to determine testimonial character)
United States v. Cadieux, 500 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. framework applying Davis to 911 calls)
United States v. Brito, 427 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. precedents finding 911-call statements non-testimonial where caller reported ongoing danger)
United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. treating near-immediate 911 statements after a gun threat as excited utterances)