Per Curiam
Deloney appealed from a Criminal Court judgment convicting him of attempted assault, harassment and attempted endangering the welfare of a child. After receiving a radio run, a police officer arrived on the scene and encountered the complainant. She informed the officer she was assaulted and thrown out of a vehicle by her child’s father, who absconded in the car with the baby in the back seat. Prosecutors’ proof included a 911 tape depicting the events. The court concluded, given the circumstances, an arrest warrant was unnecessary as the officer had reasonable cause to believe Deloney committed a crime, and also because an eyewitness victim could provide probable cause for the arrest of her assailant despite her reliability not being previously established or information corroborated. The panel determined the trial court properly concluded the victim’s statements in the 911 call were not testimonial in nature, but made for the primary purpose of reporting an emergency to summon police. Hence, it ruled there was no violation of Deloney’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. Also, the 911 call met the criteria for admission into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, affirming the conviction.
