Cited by

She describes her feelings and emotions and appears to be writing in her journal to work through her emotions.” A declarant’s use of present tense suggests the statement was made “either during [the event described] or shortly thereafter.” ¶ 17 (App. 2010).

¶¶ 17, 18 (App. 2006) (categorizing statement as non-testimonial because its main function was to get help, not “to implicate an accused at a later judicial proceeding”); ¶ 10 (App. 2010) (explaining statements to police are non-testimonial when the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency).

3 EKBERG, et al. v. M-14P Decision of the Court ¶11 The superior court is the gatekeeper of the evidence, ¶ 20 (App. 2010), and we will affirm its rulings on the admission of evidence absent an abuse of discretion or legal error and resultant prejudice, see Brown v. U.S. Fid.

“Accordingly, foundation is sufficient when supported by ‘[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.’” -77, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (quoting Ariz. R. Evid.

A declarant makes a testimonial statement when they “intend[] or believe[] it might later be used in a prosecution or at a trial.” ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

–76, ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (holding that a text message was not testimonial because nothing “suggests [victim] intended or believed it might later be used in a prosecution or at a trial”).

See Davis, 547 U.S. at 827-28 (finding recording of a 911 call seeking police assistance was not testimonial); ¶ 12 (App. 2010) (finding text message from murder victim seeking help not testimonial); ¶ 35 (App. 2006) (holding breathalyzer calibration reports not testimonial).

12 The superior court retains the role of gatekeeper of the evidence, ¶ 20 (App. 2010), and at trial on remand, the jury should be presented only with evidence related to the malicious prosecution damages.

¶ 20 (App. 2010) (citation omitted).

7 STATE v. BUTITTA Decision of the Court exists from which the jury could reasonably conclude that it is authentic.’” ¶ 18 (App. 2010) ().

¶ 16 (App. 2010) (a statement falls within present sense impression exception if it describes or explains an event and is “made while the declarant was perceiving the event”).

¶¶ 18-19 , -53 (App. 2010).

5 STATE v. WRIGHT Opinion of the Court ¶11 The present-sense-impression exception to the hearsay rule “is based on the notion that ‘substantial contemporaneity of event and statement’ negates the likelihood of fabrication or misrepresentation.”

–76 ¶ 12, –52 (App. 2010) (holding that text message from victim before murder asking friend to come over and advising that she and defendant had been fighting was not testimonial because “[nothing] suggests [victim] intended or believed it might later be used in a prosecution or at a trial”).