Case Name: Oscar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-06
Citations: 700 F. App'x 761
Docket Number: No. 16-16537
Parties: Oscar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 761–762

Head Matter:
Oscar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-16537
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 11, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed November 6, 2017
Heather E. Williams, Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Sacramento), Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant
Galen Neale Farris, Clara Maben Levers, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Kathleen M. O'Malley, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The California Court of Appeal's decision regarding the trial court's exclusion of hearsay statements made by a 911 caller was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). Davis held: "Statements are non-testimonial [for the purposes of the Confrontation Clause] when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency." Id. at 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266. Here, the defense sought to introduce the 911 call, and thus there was no Confrontation Clause issue. Davis is inapposite.
2. The state court did not unreasonably determine the facts. For the reasons stated above, the state court did not need to make findings regarding an "ongoing emergency" because the testimonial/non-testimonial distinction is only relevant to a Confrontation Clause analysis. Moreover, the state court did not need to determine the identity of the 911 caller to conclude that the caller's statements were inadmissible hearsay.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.