Amendment “is to protect against abuses of government officials.” Lehman, 926 N.E.2d at 39 (citing Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703, 706 (Ind.2009)). Neither party contests whether Medrano was unavailable or whether Young had the prior opportunity to cross-examine Medrano. To determine whether the statements are testimonial, we look at the primary purpose of the interrogation. Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1055 (Ind. 2011) (citing Michigan v. Bryant, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011)). If the circumstances objectively indicate that “the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency” then the statements are non-testimonial. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 827, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (<HOLDING>). However, if “circumstances objectively
holding declarants statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call holding that police officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent under the emergency assistance doctrine when police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property holding that the victims statements to a 911 operator while the perpetrator was in the home were nontestimonial because their primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial 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