Confrontation Clause and 9-1-1 Call Admissibility | Bussey v. State (2025)

Bussey v. State, 06-25-00157-CR, May 27, 2026.

On appeal from 213th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

A domestic-violence complainant’s 9-1-1 call made during an unresolved, ongoing emergency was nontestimonial under Davis v. Washington and therefore admissible without violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even though the complainant invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify at trial. For trial lawyers, the opinion reinforces that emergency-call evidence will usually come in when the call’s primary purpose is to obtain immediate police assistance rather than to create a substitute for trial testimony.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Bussey is a criminal appeal, its evidentiary logic matters in Texas family litigation, especially in SAPCRs, protective-order cases, divorce actions involving family violence, and conservatorship or possession disputes shaped by coercive-control allegations. Family-law litigators regularly rely on police reports, 9-1-1 recordings, body-cam footage, and outcry statements to establish risk, credibility, and the immediacy of danger; Bussey provides a useful framework for distinguishing emergency-response statements from later investigative narratives and for anticipating hearsay and confrontation-style objections in parallel criminal and civil proceedings. Strategically, the case helps family lawyers build admissibility arguments around timing, ongoing danger, and the declarant’s purpose in calling for help.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The defendant, Devin Bussey, was convicted of assault of a family or household member with a previous conviction. The relationship history mattered. Bussey and the complainant, identified as A.D., had a long-term domestic relationship and a child together. The record reflected prior episodes of abuse, a prior conviction, and a volatile relational dynamic that framed the charged September 30, 2023 incident.

In the early morning hours of that date, A.D. called 9-1-1 and reported that Bussey had injured her after she threatened to call police to remove him from her home. According to the opinion, Bussey broke her cell phone and left the residence on foot before officers arrived. Responding officers observed injuries to A.D.’s chin and knee, and a domestic-violence detective testified those injuries were consistent with having been slapped or tackled.

At trial, A.D. was present under subpoena but invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege outside the jury’s presence and did not testify. Bussey argued, among other things, that admission of the 9-1-1 recording violated the Sixth Amendment because he had no opportunity to cross-examine her. The appellate issue therefore centered on whether A.D.’s statements during the call were testimonial under Crawford and its progeny, or instead were nontestimonial statements made to obtain emergency assistance during an ongoing domestic-violence event.

Issues Decided

The court addressed multiple issues on appeal, but the confrontation issue of greatest practical significance was whether:

• the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause by admitting the complainant’s 9-1-1 call when the complainant did not testify at trial; and
• the complainant’s statements during the 9-1-1 call were testimonial or nontestimonial under Crawford and Davis.

The broader appeal also involved hearsay, relevance, speculation, extraneous-conduct evidence, Fifth Amendment complaints, sufficiency, punishment-phase evidentiary complaints, and cumulative-error arguments.

Rules Applied

The court’s Confrontation Clause analysis turns on the familiar line of authority beginning with:

• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination;
• Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), which distinguishes testimonial statements from nontestimonial ones by focusing on the primary purpose of the interrogation or exchange;
• the ongoing-emergency doctrine recognized in Davis, under which statements made in the course of seeking help during a present emergency are generally nontestimonial.

The opinion’s stated holding applies Davis directly: statements made during an ongoing-emergency 9-1-1 call are nontestimonial and do not implicate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The court also operated within the standard Texas framework that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if correct under any applicable theory of law.

Application

The court treated the 9-1-1 call as a request for immediate police intervention rather than as a substitute for in-court testimony. That distinction drove the result. The complainant was not recounting remote historical facts in a calm, post-event interview at a secure location; she was reporting a just-occurred domestic assault, explaining that the assailant had only recently fled, and seeking police assistance while the threat remained unresolved. In that setting, the court concluded the emergency had not fully ended simply because Bussey had left on foot before officers arrived.

That is an important point for domestic-violence litigation. The court recognized that an assailant’s temporary departure does not necessarily terminate the emergency. The complainant remained exposed, the scene had not been stabilized, law enforcement had not yet secured the suspect, and the risk of renewed contact or escalation persisted. Under those circumstances, the primary purpose of the 9-1-1 exchange was to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency.

The complainant’s later invocation of the Fifth Amendment did not change the constitutional character of the statements when made. The admissibility question remained whether the statements were testimonial at the time of the call. Because the court classified them as nontestimonial, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated, and the lack of cross-examination did not bar admission.

Holding

The court held that the complainant’s statements during the 9-1-1 call were nontestimonial because they were made in the course of an ongoing emergency. The assailant had just fled, officers had not yet arrived, and the threat had not been fully neutralized. As a result, admission of the recording did not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under Davis v. Washington.

In affirming the conviction, the court necessarily rejected Bussey’s argument that the complainant’s unavailability at trial transformed the emergency call into inadmissible confrontation evidence. The constitutional inquiry focused on the primary purpose of the call, not on the later procedural posture of the witness.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Bussey is most useful in cases where emergency-response evidence becomes the best available proof because the complainant later recants, refuses to appear, invokes a privilege, minimizes the event, or aligns with the opposing party. That pattern is common in protective-order litigation, temporary-orders hearings, modification suits, and conservatorship disputes involving family violence.

In protective-order practice, Bussey supports a disciplined evidentiary presentation built around the timing and purpose of the 9-1-1 call. If the caller was seeking immediate help, reporting fresh injuries, identifying the assailant’s recent departure, or expressing unresolved fear, those facts strengthen the argument that the statements arose from an ongoing emergency. Even though the Confrontation Clause does not directly govern ordinary civil family proceedings in the same way it governs criminal prosecutions, the same factual framing can be highly persuasive in hearsay exceptions, reliability arguments, and judicial assessments of urgency and danger.

In custody and conservatorship disputes, the case also sharpens how lawyers should present family-violence evidence without overreaching. A 9-1-1 call made contemporaneously with the event will often carry far more evidentiary force than a later narrative prepared in anticipation of litigation. If your theory depends on danger, instability, coercive control, or impaired parental judgment, develop the record around immediacy: when the event happened, whether the respondent remained at large, what injuries or damage were observed, whether the caller’s phone was broken, whether children were present, and whether law enforcement had secured the scene.

For the responding side, Bussey is a reminder that the best challenge is usually factual, not abstract. Do not simply argue “he had already left.” Instead, attack the notion of an ongoing emergency by showing the scene was stable, the caller was secure, the exchange had shifted into retrospective blame assignment, or the operator’s questions were aimed primarily at memorializing past events for prosecution rather than resolving present danger. In family court, that may reduce the weight of the recording even if it does not exclude it outright.

Family lawyers should also think beyond admissibility to narrative sequencing. Emergency-call evidence is strongest when paired with corroboration: officer observations, photographs, medical records, damaged-property evidence, CAD logs, body-cam footage, protective-order filings, and testimony explaining why victims of domestic abuse may later become unavailable or uncooperative. Bussey fits neatly into that broader proof structure.

Checklists

Building the Record for 9-1-1 Evidence

• Obtain the full 9-1-1 audio, CAD report, dispatch notes, and call metadata.
• Establish the timing between the assault and the call.
• Show whether the alleged assailant had just fled, remained nearby, or was still unaccounted for.
• Develop evidence that officers had not yet secured the scene when the call was made.
• Tie the caller’s statements to immediate need for assistance rather than retrospective narration.
• Confirm visible injuries, damaged property, broken phones, or signs of forced entry.
• Identify whether children or other vulnerable occupants were present.
• Use body-cam, photographs, or officer testimony to corroborate the call’s description of events.

Framing an Ongoing-Emergency Argument

• Emphasize that a temporary departure does not necessarily end the danger.
• Show unresolved threat conditions at the time of the call.
• Highlight language in the recording reflecting fear, urgency, confusion, or immediate need.
• Distinguish between statements made to obtain help and statements made after the scene is stabilized.
• Anchor the argument in Davis v. Washington and the “primary purpose” test.
• In domestic-violence settings, explain why volatility and rapid re-entry risk matter.

Challenging the Use of the Recording

• Analyze whether the emergency had objectively ended before the key statements were made.
• Separate real-time help-seeking statements from later descriptive narrative in the same call.
• Argue that portions of the recording became testimonial once the operator’s questions turned investigative.
• Develop facts showing the caller was physically safe, the suspect was gone, and no immediate danger remained.
• Object specifically to discrete statements rather than the entire recording if only portions are vulnerable.
• Preserve hearsay, Rule 403, and authentication objections alongside any constitutional complaint where applicable.

Using the Case in Family-Court Proceedings

• In protective-order hearings, frame the call as contemporaneous evidence of danger and need for intervention.
• In conservatorship cases, connect emergency-call evidence to best-interest and family-violence findings.
• In modification suits, use the recording to support material and substantial change tied to safety concerns.
• Pair the recording with police, medical, and third-party corroboration.
• Anticipate recantation or nonappearance and prepare substitute proof early.
• Avoid overclaiming; candidly acknowledge weak points in timing or scene stabilization.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problems

• Do not wait until appeal to develop the factual distinction between emergency and investigation.
• Make a precise record about when the assailant left, where he was, and whether police knew his location.
• Request redactions of arguably testimonial segments instead of only seeking wholesale exclusion.
• Preserve all objections clearly and contemporaneously.
• If the declarant is unavailable, focus your trial strategy on the constitutional character of the statement when made.
• Be prepared for the court to treat domestic-violence emergencies as continuing even after temporary flight.

Citation

Bussey v. State, No. 06-25-00157-CR, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana May 27, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~f3f7a141-b78f-4078-940e-2281e371df87~~