¶2 Kinney Wayne Compton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Ybarra v. McDaniel, *747656 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.
¶3 Compton contends that the trial court’s admission into evidence of the deceased victim’s out-of-court statements to police violated Compton’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. As to the crime scene and emergency room statements, the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law in denying Compton’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Crawford, v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), left ambiguous the scope and meaning of the terms “testimonial” and “interrogation,” and there were material differences between the circumstances in Crawford and those presented here. As to the statements made by Compton five days after the shooting, admission of those statements was harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
¶4 AFFIRMED.