and upset demeanor during the call, the temporal proximity of the call to the incident, and that the “operator focused only on obtaining information for an immediate intervention rather than a future prosecution ....” Id. This court similarly focused on the de-clarant’s state of mind in State v. Lasnetski, 696 N.W.2d 387, 392-93 (MinmApp. 2005). In that case, this court held that a wife’s statements to the police while she was on the phone with her husband, trying to convince him not to commit suicide, were nontestimonial, because “[gjiven the stress of the moment, a reasonable, objective witness would not even contemplate the possibility of a later trial, but would be solely engaged in preventing a suicide.” Id. See also State v. Krasky, 696 N.W.2d 816, 819-20 (Minn.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), review granted (Minn. Aug. 16, 2005). Here,
holding that a sevenyearolds statements to a nurse practitioner about her fathers alleged child abuse were nontestimonial because there was no evidence that the child was aware that the statements would later be used at a trial holding that statements made by a child who was brought to an emergency room by her mother were admissible when the child knew a doctor would conduct a medical exam the physician explained he was a doctor and he asked questions about medical history and performed a physical examination of the child holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify holding a social worker treating the child was permitted to testify to statements the child made about the abuse including the victims identification of the perpetrator because the statements were necessary to the treatment of ensuring the continued safety of the child holding that although the victims initial statements were nontestimonial the victims later statements to the police and her neighbor were testimonial because the primary purpose of the questioning was investigatory there was no indication of a continuing danger and the statements recounted how the potentially criminal past events began and progressed