Cited by

(concluding on-scene statements eliciting details and victims’ states of mind during crime highly persuasive).

In State v. 13 Wright, we concluded that erroneously admitted testimony impacted the verdict because it “elicited new information.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

to be 13 confronted with the witnesses against him.’”

18 Similarly, a defendant will be found to have forfeited his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him “if the state proves that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct, that he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that the wrongful conduct actually did procure the witness’s unavailability.” (quotation omitted).

Following D avis, we considered whether statements were testimonial in a –73 (Minn. 2007).

A statement is testimonial when the “primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Davis, 547 U.S. at 822).

two women called 911 to report that Wright had pointed a handgun at each of them and threatened them.

State v. Wright , (concluding that statements made after an assault were nontestimonial).

( recognizing that defendant waives right to counsel by “engag[ing] in dilatory tactics after he has been warned that he will lose his right to counsel”); (recognizing that “criminal defendant may not exploit the Confrontation Clause to bar the statements of a witness whom the defendant himself has caused to be unavailable”).

” d at 317; 476-79 (Minn. 2007) (holding that the trial court’s error in admitting statements victims made to police officers during their field investigation was not harmless); - 02 (Minn. App. 2007) ( holding that the error in admitting test results through expert’s testimony was not

State v. Wright , (quotation omitted).

They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” (quoting Davis v. Washington (Davis/Hammon), 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273-74 (2006)).

16 (quotations omitted).

two sisters called 911 following an assault at their home, and they expressed concern that the assailant would return.

(stating that cross-examination and closing arguments were insufficient counterweights).

“An accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S. Ct. at 1364; (stating testimonial statements are those made “when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no .

(noting that jurors are likely to find a witness’s out-of-court statements to be credible if testified to by a police officer).

Ms. McMullen’s call is analogous to the 911 -74 (Minn. 2007), where the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the portions of a 911 call made while a domestic abuser had yet to be apprehended were nontestimonial because the caller was not acting as witness by calling police to obtain assistance during an ongoing emergency.

In State v. Wright, we balanced the “dramatic and highly persuasive nature” of disputed statements and the “manner in which they were presented and used by the [S]tate” with the “counterweight [the defendant] provided through cross-examination and closing argument” and held the counterweight was “insufficient.”

A Confrontation Clause error is harmless if “the guilty verdict actually rendered [is] ‘surely unattributable’ to the error.” (quoting Courtney, d at 80 ).

at 2694-95 (Souter, J., concurring); Fields, d at 347 ; State v. Wright (Wright III)

Because the prosecutor argued an accomplice liability theory, it was necessary for the district court to inform the jury that the state was required to prove that appellant “played a knowing role in the commission of the crime.”