Non-testimonial statement - admissible only if hearsay exception is satisfied (2006) Davis v. Washington & Hammon v. Indiana Facts: - Statements at issue were uttered by a crime victim in a 911 Davis call. The victim was unavailable at trial, so the court allowed the state to play the tape recording. - Victim made the statements at the crime scene by Hammon filling in the blanks and signing a printed affidavit form. Victim did not appear at trial and the court allowed the investigating officer to recount what the victim said and to authenticate the affidavit for admission into evidence. Holding: - Affirmed. The circumstances of the 911 call indicate its Davis primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. The caller was not acting as a witness she was not testifying. - Reversed. The statements here were not much different Hammon than they were in Crawford. It is clear from the circumstances that the interrogation was part of an investigation into possibly criminal past conduct. There was no emergency in progress. (Miss. App. 2009) Shorter v. State Facts: Shorter discovered his wife sleeping with another man. Shorter shot and killed him. Wife immediately called 911. Shorter filed a motion in limine to exclude his statements made during the 911 call, wife’s arguing that (1) the admission of statements would violate the Spousal Competency Rule and (2) the statements were testimonial in nature and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause. Cases Considered by Court: Dowback v. State Police met clandestinely with wife and enlisted her as an informant against her husband. Wife did not testify, but husband said that all evidence obtained from his wife was inadmissible court rejected it because here, the 911 Shorter wife’s recording was played for the jury Ford v. State Admission of a out-of-court statements may spouse’s violate spousal-competency. The court held that admission of the testimony about the statements wife’s out-of-court was reversible error based upon spousal-competency principles.
Non-testimonial statement - admissible only if hearsay exception is satisfied Davis v. Washington & Hammon v. Indiana (2006) Facts: Davis - Statements at issue were uttered by a crime victim in a 911 call. The victim was unavailable at trial, so the court allowed the state to play the tape recording. Hammon - Victim made the statements at the crime scene by filling in the blanks and signing a printed affidavit form. Victim did not appear at trial and the court allowed the investigating officer to recount what the victim said and to authenticate the affidavit for admission into evidence. Holding: Davis - Affirmed. The circumstances of the 911 call indicate its primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. The caller was not acting as a witness she was not testifying. Hammon - Reversed. The statements here were not much different than they were in Crawford. It is clear from the circumstances that the interrogation was part of an investigation into possibly criminal past conduct. There was no emergency in progress. Shorter v. State (Miss. App. 2009) Facts: Shorter discovered his wife sleeping with another man. Shorter shot and killed him. Wife immediately called 911. Shorter filed a motion in limine to exclude his wife’s statements made during the 911 call, arguing that (1) the admission of statements would violate the Spousal Competency Rule and (2) the statements were testimonial in nature and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause. Cases Considered by Court: Dowback v. State Police met clandestinely with wife and enlisted her as an informant against her husband. Wife did not testify, but husband said that all evidence obtained from his wife was inadmissible Shorter court rejected it because here, the wife’s 911 recording was played for the jury Ford v. State Admission of a spouse’s out-of-court statements may violate spousal-competency. The court held that admission of the testimony about the wife’s out-of-court statements was reversible error based upon spousal-competency principles.
Evidence-Williams-MS.docx