Davis v. Washington, No. 05-5224.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtScalia
Citation547 U.S. 813,165 L. Ed. 2d 224,126 S. Ct. 2266
Decision Date19 June 2006
Docket NumberNo. 05-5224.
PartiesDAVIS <I>v.</I> WASHINGTON
547 U.S. 813
126 S. Ct. 2266
165 L. Ed. 2d 224
DAVIS
v.
WASHINGTON
No. 05-5224.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 20, 2006.
Decided June 19, 2006.*

In No. 05-5224, a 911 operator ascertained from Michelle McCottry that she had been assaulted by her former boyfriend, petitioner Davis, who had just fled the scene. McCottry did not testify at Davis's trial for felony violation of a domestic no-contact order, but the court admitted the 911 recording despite Davis's objection, which he based on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. He was convicted. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the State Supreme Court, which concluded that, inter alia, the portion of the 911 conversation in which McCottry identified Davis as her assailant was not testimonial.

In No. 05-5705, when police responded to a reported domestic disturbance at the home of Amy and Hershel Hammon, Amy told them that nothing was wrong, but gave them permission to enter. Once inside, one officer kept petitioner Hershel in the kitchen while the other interviewed Amy elsewhere and had her complete and sign a battery affidavit. Amy did not appear at Hershel's bench trial for, inter alia, domestic battery, but her affidavit and testimony from the officer who questioned her were admitted over Hershel's objection that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her. Hershel was convicted, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in relevant part. The State Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that, although Amy's affidavit was testimonial and wrongly admitted, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

1. The Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 53-54. These cases require the Court to determine which police "interrogations" produce statements that fall within this prohibition. Without attempting to produce an exhaustive classification of all conceivable statements as either testimonial or nontestimonial, it suffices to decide the present cases to hold that statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating

[547 U.S. 814]

that the primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. Pp. 821-822.

2. McCottry's statements identifying Davis as her assailant were not testimonial. Pp. 823-829.

(a) This case requires the Court to decide whether the Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial hearsay, and, if so, whether the 911 recording qualifies. Crawford suggested the answer to the first question, noting that "the Confrontation Clause . . . applies to `witnesses' against the accused—in other words, those who `bear testimony.'" 541 U. S., at 51. Only "testimonial statements" cause a declarant to be a witness. The Court is unaware of any early American case invoking the Confrontation Clause or the common-law right to confrontation that did not involve testimony as thus defined. Well into the 20th century, this Court's jurisprudence was carefully applied only in the testimonial context, and its later cases never in practice dispensed with the Confrontation Clause requirements of unavailability and prior cross-examination in cases involving testimonial hearsay. Pp. 823-826.

(b) The question in Davis, therefore, is whether, objectively considered, the interrogation during the 911 call produced testimonial statements. In contrast to Crawford, where the interrogation took place at a police station and was directed solely at establishing a past crime, a 911 call is ordinarily designed primarily to describe current circumstances requiring police assistance. The difference is apparent here. McCottry was speaking of events as they were actually happening, while Crawford's interrogation took place hours after the events occurred. Moreover, McCottry was facing an ongoing emergency. Further, the statements elicited were necessary to enable the police to resolve the present emergency rather than simply to learn what had happened in the past. Finally, the difference in the level of formality is striking. Crawford calmly answered questions at a station house, with an officer-interrogator taping and taking notes, while McCottry's frantic answers were provided over the phone, in an environment that was not tranquil, or even safe. Thus, the circumstances of her interrogation objectively indicate that its primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. She was not acting as a witness or testifying. Pp. 826-829.

3. Amy Hammon's statements were testimonial. They were not much different from those in Crawford. It is clear from the circumstances that Amy's interrogation was part of an investigation into possibly

[547 U.S. 815]

criminal past conduct. There was no emergency in progress, she told the police when they arrived that things were fine, and the officer questioning her was seeking to determine not what was happening but what had happened. Objectively viewed, the primary, if not sole, purpose of the interrogation was to investigate a possible crime. While the formal features of Crawford's interrogation strengthened her statements' testimonial aspect, such features were not essential to the point. In both cases, the declarants were separated from the defendants, the statements recounted how potentially criminal past events began and progressed, and the interrogation took place some time after the events were over. For the same reasons the comparison to Crawford is compelling, the comparison to Davis is unpersuasive. The statements in Davis were taken when McCottry was alone, unprotected by police, and apparently in immediate danger from Davis. She was seeking aid, not telling a story about the past. Pp. 829-832.

4. The Indiana courts may determine on remand whether a claim of forfeiture by wrongdoing—under which one who obtains a witness's absence by wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation— is properly raised in Hammon, and, if so, whether it is meritorious. Absent such a finding, the Sixth Amendment operates to exclude Amy Hammon's affidavit. Pp. 832-834.

No. 05-5224, 154 Wash. 2d 291, 111 P. 3d 844, affirmed; No. 05-5705, 829 N. E. 2d 444, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 834.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

Jeffrey L. Fisher, by appointment of the Court, 546 U. S. 1074, argued the cause for petitioner in No. 05-5224. With him on the briefs was Nancy Collins. Richard D. Friedman, by appointment of the Court, 546 U. S. 1088, argued the cause for petitioner in No. 05-5705. With him on the briefs was Kimberly A. Jackson.

James M. Whisman argued the cause for respondent in No. 05-5224. With him on the brief were Norm Maleng, Deborah A. Dwyer, and Lee D. Yates. Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General of Indiana, argued the cause for respondent in No. 05-5705. With him on the brief were Steve Carter,

[547 U.S. 816]

Attorney General, and Nicole M. Schuster and Julie A. Hoffman, Deputy Attorneys General.

Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 05-5224. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Irving L. Gornstein, and Joel M. Gershowitz.

Mr. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 05-5705. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, and Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben.

[547 U.S. 817]

JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.


These cases require us to determine when statements made to law enforcement personnel during a 911 call or at a crime scene are "testimonial" and thus subject to the requirements of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

I
A

The relevant statements in Davis v. Washington, No. 05-5224, were made to a 911 emergency operator on February 1, 2001. When the operator answered the initial call, the connection terminated before anyone spoke. She reversed the call, and Michelle McCottry answered. In the ensuing conversation, the operator ascertained that McCottry was involved in a domestic disturbance with her former boyfriend Adrian Davis, the petitioner in this case:

"911 Operator: Hello.

"Complainant: Hello.

"911 Operator: What's going on?

"Complainant: He's here jumpin' on me again.

"911 Operator: Okay. Listen to me carefully. Are you in a house or an apartment?

"Complainant: I'm in a house.

"911 Operator: Are there any weapons?

"Complainant: No. He's usin' his fists.

"911 Operator: Okay. Has he been drinking?

"Complainant: No.

"911 Operator: Okay, sweetie. I've got help started. Stay on the line with me, okay?

"Complainant: I'm on the line.

547 U.S. 818

"911 Operator: Listen to me carefully. Do you know his last name?

"Complainant: It's Davis.

"911 Operator: Davis? Okay, what's his first name?

"Complainant: Adran

"911 Operator: What is it?

"Complainant: Adrian.

"911 Operator: Adrian?

"Complainant: Yeah.

"911 Operator: Okay. What's his middle initial?

"Complainant: Martell. He's runnin' now." App. in No. 05-5224, pp. 8-9.

As the conversation continued, the operator learned that Davis had "just r[un] out the door" after hitting McCottry, and that he was leaving in a car with someone else. Id., at 9-10. McCottry started...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4724 practice notes
  • United States v. Thurman, Criminal Action No. 3:10CR107–H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • January 7, 2013
    ...177 (2004) and its progeny. See, Melendez–Diaz v. Mass., 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2531, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). Thus, the admission or the non-admission of the disputed conversations presents complex challenges,......
  • United States v. Morgan, Nos. 12–1408
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 9, 2014
    ...is] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. at 777–78 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). In overruling the Defendants' Confrontation Clause objection to Exhibit 14A, the district court ......
  • United States v. Miller, No. 18-5578
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 3, 2020
    ...To distinguish between these two types of statements, the Supreme Court has adopted a "primary-purpose" test. See Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). The Court has described this test in varying ways. It has sometimes noted that a statement made ......
  • Ware v. Harry, Case No. 06-CV-10553-DT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • April 21, 2008
    ...clarified that the Confrontation Clause is simply not implicated by the introduction of non-testimonial hearsay. In Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), the Court Page 585 addressed this question of "whether the Confrontation Clause applies only to test......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4679 cases
  • United States v. Thurman, Criminal Action No. 3:10CR107–H.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • January 7, 2013
    ...177 (2004) and its progeny. See, Melendez–Diaz v. Mass., 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2531, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). Thus, the admission or the non-admission of the disputed conversations presents complex challenges,......
  • United States v. Morgan, Nos. 12–1408
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • April 9, 2014
    ...is] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. at 777–78 (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006)). In overruling the Defendants' Confrontation Clause objection to Exhibit 14A, the district court ......
  • United States v. Miller, No. 18-5578
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 3, 2020
    ...To distinguish between these two types of statements, the Supreme Court has adopted a "primary-purpose" test. See Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). The Court has described this test in varying ways. It has sometimes noted that a statement made ......
  • Ware v. Harry, Case No. 06-CV-10553-DT.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • April 21, 2008
    ...clarified that the Confrontation Clause is simply not implicated by the introduction of non-testimonial hearsay. In Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), the Court Page 585 addressed this question of "whether the Confrontation Clause applies only to test......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Two Rights Collide: Determining When Attorney-Client Privilege Should Yield to a Defendant’s Right to Compulsory Process or Confrontation
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-2, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...of witnesses who have since become unavailable and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination). 58. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006) (holding that a portion of the victim’s 911 conversation in which she identif‌ied the defendant was not testimonial). 59. Crawford, 541......
  • FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...standard and citing cases detailing the history of theEleventh Circuit’s position), abrogated on other grounds by Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006).158. See United States v. Decubas, 506 F. App’x 986, 989 n.5 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining a “possibleinconsistency in [the Eleventh......
  • Antisubjugation and the Equal Protection of the Laws
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal Nbr. 110-1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...be “adaptive” when they position constitutional decisionmakers to make decisions 114. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 115. 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 116. 547 U.S. 813 (2006). 117. Compare Thomas Y. Davies, What Did the Framers Know, and When Did They Know It? Fictional Originalism in Crawford v. Washingto......
  • Criminal Justice Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005 Term
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 31-4, December 2006
    • December 1, 2006
    ...Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).Clark v. Arizona, 126 S.Ct. 2709 (2006).Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).Davis v. Washington, 126 S.Ct. 2266 (2006).Day v. McDonough, 126 S.Ct. 1675 (2006).Dixon v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2437 (2006).Evans v. Chavez, 126 S.Ct. 1491 (2006).Furman ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT