LOCATION: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DOCKET NO.: 05-5705
DECIDED BY: Roberts Court (2006-2009)
LOWER COURT: Supreme Court of Indiana
CITATION: 547 US 813 (2006)
GRANTED: Oct 31, 2005
ARGUED: Mar 20, 2006
DECIDED: Jun 19, 2006
Irving L. Gornstein - argued the cause for Respondent
Richard D. Friedman - argued the cause for Petitioner
Thomas M. Fisher - argued the cause for Respondent
Facts of the case
Hershel Hammon was charged with domestic abuse after police responded to a call from his house. When they arrived, Hammon's wife told police that her husband had beaten her. While Mrs. Hammon did not testify at Mr. Hammon's trial, the police officer did testify about what she had told him. Mr. Hammon's attorney objected to the admission of the testimony without cross-examination, but the judge allowed it under the "excited utterance" exception to the general rule against hearsay testimony (second-hand reports of what someone said or did). The police officer was not trying to preserve evidence but merely to assess the incident, so Mrs. Hammon's statements to him were not the sort of testimony prohibited under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment in Crawford v. Washington, may statements made to police during investigation of a crime, though not made with the intent to preserve evidence, be admitted in court without allowing defendants to cross-examine the person who made the original statements?
Media for Hammon v. IndianaAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 20, 2006 in Hammon v. Indiana
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 19, 2006 in Hammon v. Indiana
John G. Roberts, Jr.:
Justice Scalia has the announcement in 05-5224 Davis v. Washington, and 05-5705, Hammon v. Indiana.
It’s me again.
These cases are here on writs of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington and the Supreme Court of Indiana, respectively.
The question before us in both cases is whether the admission of out-of-court statements violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him,”.
The facts of each case described in brief are as follows.
In the first of them, Davis, a 911 operator received a frantic call from Michelle McCottry, who was involved in an ongoing domestic disturbance with Davis, her former boyfriend.
The operator asked McCottry a number of questions to determine what was happening and some questions about Davis to determine whether the dispatched police officers would be dealing with a dangerous felon.
At some point during the 911 call, Davis apparently left McCottry’s home.
Police arrived on the scene within four minutes of the call.
The State of Washington charged Davis with felony violation of a domestic no-contact order.
At trial, only the police who arrived on the scene after Davis had left testified; McCottry herself did not.
But the prosecutor offered a recording of the 911 call, which identified Davis as the assailant and which was admitted over Davis’s Confrontation Clause objection.
The jury convicted him, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Supreme Court of Washington, which held that McCottry’s statements were nontestimonial.
In the other case, Hammon, a domestic disturbance call led police to the home of Hershel and Amy Hammon.
They found Amy sitting on the front porch.
She told them that nothing was wrong, but they asked for and received Amy’s permission to enter the home.
Inside, they observed a living room showing signs of an altercation, including a broken heater.
Hershel, Amy’s husband, was sitting alone in the kitchen.
The officers asked him what had happened, he told them that he and his wife had had a disagreement, but that it never became physical.
At some point, Amy came back inside and went into the living room.
One of the officers stayed with Hershel in the kitchen while the other went to ask Amy about the night’s events once more.
This time, she described the altercation in some detail, saying that it began over a dispute about their daughter, that it evolved from being verbal to being physical, that Hershel started breaking things, that he threw her down, shoved her and punched her.
After hearing her story, the officer asked her to write it out on a battery affidavit, a regular form that this police department had, and to sign that affidavit, which she did.
The State of Indiana charged Hershel with domestic battery.
Amy did not appear at the subsequent trial.
Although Hershel objected on Confrontation Clause grounds, Amy’s statements about the events in question were admitted, both through the testimony of the officer who had questioned her and through the battery affidavit that she had signed.
Hershel was convicted.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Supreme Court of Indiana.
It concluded that although the affidavit was testimonial and had been wrongly admitted, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The officer’s testimony about Amy’s oral statements to him, on the other hand, the Indiana Supreme Court held were not testimonial.