Adrian Martell Davis v Washington 547 u.s. (2006) No. 05-5224

Name Class :Date : July 8 , 2007 Instructor v . Washington , 547 U .S . ___ (2006 )2 . Initial Posting : Appealed from : Supreme Court of Washington Oral argument : March 20 , 2006 Decided : June 19 , 2006 2a . Issue : Are 911 calls – previously admissible as evidence in court even when the witness was absent under exceptions to the hearsay rule – “testimonial ” statements and therefore no longer admissible under the new Crawford standard ?2b . State the critical facts relied upon by the Court to characterize the statements made by Ms . McCottry and Ms . Hammon as “testimonial ‘ or “nontestimonial ‘ in light of the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause :Davis was charged with violating a domestic no-contact order after police responded to a 911 call from Michelle McCottrey . While on the telephone , McCottrey identified Davis as her assailant and told the operator that Davis had used his fists to beat her and that he had left her residence moments earlier . McCottrey did not testify at Davis ‘trial . The state submitted the recording of her 911 call as evidence linking Davis to McCottrey ‘s injuries , over the objections of Davis . The Washington Supreme Court affirmed , holding that the 911 call in this case was not a “testimonial ” statement under the Crawford analysis .First , an emergency 911 call is not of the same nature as an in-custody interrogation by police , so is not the functional equivalent of uncross-examined , in-court testimony . Second , the purpose of a 911 call is generally not to “bear witness ” If the purpose of the call was for help or rescue , as in this case , it does not resemble the specific type of out-of-court statement with which Crawford is concerned . Hammon was charged with domestic battery after police responded to a call from the Hammon residence . While being questioned , Mrs . Hammon told an officer that her husband had thrown her to the ground and beaten her .Mrs . Hammon did not testify at Mr . Hammon ‘s trial , but the officer testified as to what Mrs . Hammon told him that night . Mr . Hammon ‘s attorney objected to this testimony , but it was allowed under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule . The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed , defining “testimonial ” statements as those where a principal motive of either the person making the statement or the person receiving it is to preserve it for future use in legal proceedings .Thus , statements to investigating officers in response to the officer ‘s general initial inquiries are nontestimonial , but statements made for the purpose of preserving the accounts of potential witnesses are testimonial . In this case , the officer ‘s motives for questioning Mrs .Hammon were to assess and secure the situation neither the officer nor Mrs . Hammon intended to preserve Mrs . Hammon ‘s statement as future testimony the statements were not “testimonial ‘ and therefore were admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule .Assume the following facts : After leaving a bar , a woman enters her car in a darkened parking garage . She is confronted by her ex-husband against whom she has a domestic…

Tags of essay "Adrian Martell Davis v Washington 547 u.s. (2006) No. 05-5224 ": , , , , , , ,