New NC Case on Testimonial Nature of Victim’s Statements to Officers

Under the Crawford Confrontation Clause rule, testimonial statements by witnesses who aren’t subject to cross-examination at trial can’t be admitted unless the witness is unavailable and there has been a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Smith, A Guide to Crawford and the Confrontation Clause, in NC Superior Court Judges Benchbook (UNC School of Government Aug. 2015). In the Davis case, the US Supreme Court set out a two-part rule for determining whether or not statements are testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Statements 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 facts potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. Id. Davis actually involved two consolidated cases. In the first, Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court held that statements by a domestic violence victim during a 911 call were nontestimonial. The victim told the 911 Operator that her ex-boyfriend was “jumpin’ on me again” using his fists. 547 U.S. at 817. The victim reported the perpetrator’s name as Adrian Davis and added, “He’s runnin’ now.” Id. at 818. Davis was charged and although the victim didn’t testify, her 911 call statements were admitted at trial. Applying the two-part rule noted above, the Court held that the victim’s 911 [...]