# State v. Mizenko

> Montana Supreme Court · January 11, 2006 · 330 Mont. 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511661

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY MICHAEL MIZENKO, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Montana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 11, 2006
- **Citations:** 330 Mont. 299; 127 P.3d 458; 2006 MT 11; 2006 Mont. LEXIS 11
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cotter
- **Judges:** W. William Leaphart
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511661

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding statements to police officers or government agents are presumed nontestimonial if the declarant had an objective reason to believe the “statement would serve only to avert or mitigate an imminent or immediate danger and the agent who received the statement had no inten…
- applying the third Crawford formulation and holding an excited utterance during a 911 call to be nontestimonial

## Opinion text

JUSTICE COTTER
dissents.
¶193 I join in the foregoing dissent. I write to add that I did participate as a member of the majority in Cameron. See, ¶¶ 171-179. Having now received the benefit of Justice Nelson’s exhaustive analysis on the subject of Crawford and the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, I agree with his conclusion that Cameron was wrongly decided.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9511661. Public record. Not legal advice.