The New Hampshire Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether Crawford bars admission of a 911 telephone call. However, other state and federal "courts have concluded that statements made by a person seeking protection from immediate danger which also report a crime are categorically nontestimonial." State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802, 810 (Minn. 2005) (citations omitted); see also People v. Coleman, 16 A.D.3d 254, 791 N.Y.S.2d 112 (2005); Massey v. LaMarque, 2005 U.S; Brun, supra; State v. Byrd, 160 Ohio App. 3d 538, 2005 Ohio 1902, 828 N.E.2d 133 (Ohio App. 2005); People v. Moscat, 3 Misc.3d 739, 777 N.Y.S.2d 875 (2004); Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2004). In contrast, several courts have found that such calls are categorically testimonial and must be excluded from trial. See United States v. Arnold, 410 F.3d 895 (6th Cir. 2005); People v. Cortes, 4 Misc. 3d 575, 781 N.Y.S.2d 401 (2004). However, "most courts that have directly addressed this issue have elected to analyze the circumstances of a given 911 call on a case-by-case basis in order to reach a conclusion about whether the statements made during that call are testimonial or nontestimonial." Wright, 701 N.W.2d at 811; see also State v. Davis, 154 Wn.2d 291, 111 P.3d 844 (Wash. 2005).