State v. Pugh

¶1 The defendant contends that his state and federal rights to confrontation were violated when the trial court admitted a recording of a 911 call at his trial. He argues that the state’s confrontation clause, article I, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution, is more protective than the Sixth Amendment of the United States *829Constitution in the context of excited utterance hearsay statements. We conclude that the defendant has failed to show that the statements at issue come within the protection afforded under article I, section 22.

FACTS

¶2 Defendant Timothy Pugh and Bridgette Pugh…