In re Peter M.
The primary issue in this case is the admissibility of a 911 call implicating appellant in a residential burglary. Even though the caller did not testify at trial, we find her statements were admissible because they were nontestimonial and they fall within the spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule. We also find there was sufficient evidence of the burglary apart from appellant’s pretrial confession to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on In re Peter M.