Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Davis: A call was made to a 911 emergency operator. The connection terminated before anyone spoke. She reversed the call, and Michelle McCottry answered. The operator ascertained that McCottry was involved in a domestic disturbance with her former boyfriend, Davis (D). The operator questioned Michelle about the emergency and then learned that D was leaving in a car with someone else. The police arrived within four minutes of the 911 call and observed McCottry's shaken state, the 'fresh injuries on her forearm and her face,' and her 'frantic efforts to gather her belongings and her children so that they could leave the residence.' D was charged with felony violation of a domestic no-contact order. P's only witnesses were the two police officers who responded to the 911 call. Both officers testified that McCottry exhibited injuries that appeared to be recent, but neither officer could testify as to the cause of the injuries. Over D's objection, based on the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, the trial court admitted the recording of her exchange with the 911 operator, and the jury convicted him. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Washington also affirmed; that the portion of the 911 conversation in which McCottry identified D was not testimonial. The Supreme Court granted Certiorari.
Hammon: Police responded to a 'reported domestic disturbance' at the home of Hershel (D) and Amy Hammon. Amy was alone on the front porch, appearing ' 'somewhat frightened,' ' but she told them that ' 'nothing was the matter.' She gave them permission to enter the house, where an officer saw 'a gas heating unit in the corner of the living room' that had 'flames coming out of the ... partial glass front. There were pieces of glass on the ground in front of it, and there was flame emitting from the front of the heating unit.' D was in the kitchen. He told the police 'that he and his wife had 'been in an argument' but 'everything was fine now' and the argument 'never became physical.' Amy had come back inside. One officer talked to Amy, and D made several attempts to participate in Amy's conversation with the police. After hearing Amy's account, the officer 'had her fill out and sign a battery affidavit.' Amy handwrote the following: 'Broke our Furnace & shoved me down on the floor into the broken glass. Hit me in the chest and threw me down. Broke our lamps & phone. Tore up my van where I couldn't leave the house. Attacked my daughter.' D was charged with domestic battery and with violating his probation. Amy was subpoenaed, but she did not appear at his subsequent bench trial. P called the officer who had questioned Amy and asked him to recount what Amy told him and to authenticate the affidavit. D's counsel repeatedly objected to the admission of this evidence because there was no opportunity to cross-examine [the] person who allegedly drafted it. The trial court admitted the affidavit as a 'present sense impression,' and Amy's statements as 'excited utterances' that 'are expressly permitted in these kinds of cases even if the declarant is not available to testify.' D was convicted. The Indiana Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that Amy's statement was admissible for state-law purposes as an excited utterance. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co