Dusty Spratlin was convicted of criminal trespass after his partner, Rosa Pearson, reported that he shot her van windshield with a BB gun. Pearson described the incident in a 911 call and to officers on body-camera video; she later died of unrelated causes and could not testify. A jury acquitted Spratlin of two aggravated-assault counts. The trial court admitted Pearson’s statements as excited utterances and treated that hearsay ruling as resolving Spratlin’s Confrontation Clause objection. It denied a new trial; the State conceded on appeal that the court had conflated the two analyses. The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated and remanded. It held that hearsay rules apply only after a court separately determines whether an out-of-court statement is testimonial under Crawford; a testimonial statement generally cannot be admitted absent unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Because the trial court relied on the wrong analysis, the appellate court could not assess admissibility and remanded for separate reconsideration of the 911 and body-camera statements. The court did not reach Spratlin’s Batson challenge to jury strikes. The conviction judgment was vacated and the case remanded.