Theft -- Service dog -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- 911 call made by victim of theft is not inadmissible testimonial statement under Confrontation Clause where primary purpose of call was to summon assistance from police due to recent theft of service dog. Exceptions to the Hearsay rule. Excited utterances. The victim's statements during 911 call describing what occurred, where it occurred, and what evidence of crime was available were offered for truth of matters asserted and are hearsay. Where victim called 911 thirty minutes to an hour after the theft were the victim's demeanor during call sounds calm and factual, and state not offering any evidence other than recording of call to establish that call constituted excited utterance supports the state failed to meet its burden to establish that call was excited utterance. The Defendants' Motion in Limine is GRANTED, and the assertions made during the 911 call are deemed inadmissible hearsay.

Read Opinion Below: