In Davis, the Court upheld admission of the victim's call to a 911 operator immediately following the defendant's assault on her. Her statements, made in order to obtain police help in the immediate aftermath of the assault, were non-testimonial in nature. In Hammon, however, the victim's statements were made after the immediate "emergency" of the assault had passed, to a police officer investigating the crime. Those statements, recorded as part of an effort to assemble a case for arrest and prosecution, were "testimonial" in nature. Their admission in the absence of the declarant's availability for cross-examination was error.

Courts across the country are examining what types of evidence are non-testimonial in nature and therefore admissible in an evidence-based domestic violence prosecution.