Document: 497 U.S. 805 110 S.Ct. 3139 111 L.Ed.2d 638 IDAHO, Petitionerv.Laura Lee WRIGHT. No. 89-260. Argued April 18, 1990. Decided June 27, Syllabus Respondent Wright was charged under Idaho law with two counts of lewd conduct a minor, specifically her 51/2- and 21/2-year-old daughters. At the trial, it agreed that younger daughter not "capable communicating to jury." However, court admitted, Idaho's residual hearsay exception, certain statements she had made pediatrician having extensive experience in child abuse cases. The doctor testified reluctantly answered questions about own abuse, but spontaneously volunteered information sister's abuse. convicted on both counts, appealed only from conviction involving child. State Supreme Court reversed, finding admission doctor's testimony exception violated Wright's rights Confrontation Clause. noted child's did fall within traditional lacked "particularized guarantees trustworthiness" because conducted interview without procedural safeguards: He failed videotape interview, asked leading questions, preconceived idea what should be disclosing. This error, found, harmless beyond reasonable doubt. Held: Clause rights. Pp. 813-827. (a) Incriminating admissible an rule are unless prosecution produces, or demonstrates unavailability of, declarant whose statement wishes use bears adequate indicia reliability. reliability requirement can met where either falls firmly rooted is supported by showing trustworthiness." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597. Although presumed here unavailable meaning Clause, evidence will barred met. 813-817. (b) for purposes. It accommodates ad hoc instances which otherwise falling recognized might sufficiently reliable at thus does share same tradition supporting admissibility exception. To would require virtually all codified exceptions found assume constitutional stature, something this has declined do. California Green, 399 149, 155-156, 90 1930, 1933-1934, 26 489. 817-818. (c) In determining were shown, erred placing dispositive weight lack safeguards since such may many inappropriate unnecessary determination whether given trustworthy Rather, trustworthiness must shown totality those circumstances surround making render particularly worthy belief. As case admitted see e. g., supra, 161, S.Ct., 1936, possessing so adversarial testing add little its cases, factors used determine guarantees—such as declarant's mental state terminology unexpected similar age—must relate likely telling truth when made. State's contention corroborating properly support rejected, permit presumptively unreliable statements, duress, bootstrapping other trial. That result odds cross-examination marginal utility. Also rejected per se ground trial incompetent testify capable jury implicitly time receiving just impressions facts relating them truly. Moreover, erect barring prior who unable communicate See, Mattox United States, 156 237, 243-244, 15 337, 339-340, 39 L.Ed. 409. 818-825. (d) admitting evidence, identified factors—whether motive make up story whether, age, type one expect fabricate—relating surrounding statements. focused presumptive unreliability out-of-court suggestive manner his interview. Viewing circumstances, there no special reason supposing incriminating trustworthy. Her sister presents closer question. spontaneity change demeanor suggest have been truth, inaccurate indicator interrogation, prompting, manipulation adults. comparable required, example, excited utterances purposes medical diagnosis treatment. Because challenge Court's error doubt, revisit issue. 825-827. 116 382, 775 P.2d 1224 (1989), affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, SCALIA, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 827. James T. Jones, Jerome, Idaho, petitioner. William C. Bryson, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae petitioner leave Court. Rolf Michael Kehne, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR 1 requires us decide examining violates defendant's Sixth Amendment. 2 * Laura jointly Robert L. Giles minor 16, violation Code § 18-1508 (1987). alleged victims respondent's daughters, whom 51/2 21/2 years old crimes charged. 3 ex-husband, Louis Wright, father older daughter, reached informal agreement whereby each parent custody six consecutive months. allegations surfaced November 1986 told Cynthia Goodman, female companion, sexual intercourse while respondent held down covered mouth, App. 47-55; Tr. 456-460, seen do thing 48-49, 61; 460. living parents Giles—at offenses. 4 Goodman reported daughter's disclosures police next day took hospital. A examination revealed One physicians Dr. John Jambura, 91-94. Police welfare officials into protection investigation. Jambura examined following conditions "strongly vaginal contact," occurring approximately three days examination. Id., 105, 106. 5 joint Giles, voir dire testifying. 32-38. concluded, parties agreed, "not 39. 6 issue response he regarding Over objection permitted before follows: "Q. [By prosecutor] Now, calling your attention then [the daughter] 10th. What—would you describe any dialogue [her] time? Excuse me, get that, lay setting place else present? 7 "A. my office, room, and, I recall, believe previous said recall attendant being present, don't identity. 8 "I started out basically, 'Hi, how you,' know, 'What breakfast morning?' Essentially few minutes sort chitchat. 9 Was first questions? 10 There was. She carry very relaxed animated conversation. proceeded gently start asking about, 'Well, things home,' sorts. Gently moving domestic situation moved four particular, reflected records, 'Do play daddy? Does daddy you? touch pee-pee? Do pee-pee?' And again we established meant pee-pee, generic term genital area. 11 Before was, best recollect, question daddy?' 12 Yes, play—I remember comment yes lot expanding talking spending daddy. 13 'Does you?' response? responded well, they played together variety seemed unaffected 14 say When pee-pee,' admit that. asked, response. 16 me. Did notice affect attitude line questioning? 17 Yes. 18 What observe? 19 not—oh, talk further elucidate exactly—what kind touching taking place, happening. did, however, more than 20 offer last statement? 21 sat waited respond, after clammed-up, allowing some silence occur." 121-123. 22 On cross-examination, acknowledged picture drew during questioning discarded. 124. also stated although dictated notes summarize conversation, detailed record changes attitude. 123-124. 23 these provides relevant part: 24 "Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions; availability immaterial.—The excluded rule, even though available witness. 25 . "(24) Other exceptions. foregoing equivalent circumstantial trustworthiness, if determines (A) offered material fact; (B) probative point proponent procure through efforts; (C) general rules interests justice served evidence." Rule Evid. 803(24). 27 sentenced years' imprisonment. Each daughter. contended Jambura's disagreed affirmed conviction. 115 984, 772 191 (1989). asserted nevertheless reversed 28 inculpatory federal right confrontation based safeguards. 385, P.2d, 1227. technique inadequate "the answers recorded preservation perusal defense trial; blatantly interrogation." Ibid. according court, "this interrogation performed someone disclosing." Noting expert psychology texts indicated children susceptible suggestion therefore misled "[t]he demonstrate dangers which, [audio video] recorded, never fully assessed." 388, 1230. concluded particularized necessary satisfy requirements them. 389, 1231. convinced, occurred, count remanded new 29 We granted certiorari, 493 1041, 833, 107 829 (1990), now affirm. II 30 Amendment, applicable States Fourteenth provides: "In criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy confronted witnesses against him." 31 From earliest our jurisprudence, consistently necessarily prohibit defendant, thought violate literal terms 243, 339, 409 (1895); Pointer Texas, 380 400, 407, 85 1065, 1069, 923 (1965). reaffirmed recently "[w]hile interpretation could bar unavailable, view 'unintended too extreme.' " Bourjaily 483 171, 182, 2775, 2782, 97 144 (1987) (quoting 63, 2537, 597 (1980)); Maryland Craig, 836, 847, 3157, 3164, 666 ("[T]he [Confrontation] permits, necessary, defendant despite inability confront trial"). 32 generally designed protect values, careful equate Clause's prohibitions prohibiting See 489 (1970); Dutton Evans, 400 74, 86, 91 210, 218, 213 (1970) (plurality opinion); Inadi, 475 387, 393, n. 5, 106 1121, 1125, 89 390 (1986). words, bars rule. U.S., 1933-1934; Bruton 391 123, 88 1620, 476 (1968); Barber Page, 719, 1318, 255 Pointer, supra. 33 set forth "a approach" meet 65, 2538. "operates separate ways restrict range hearsay." "First, conformance Framers' preference face-to-face accusation, Amendment establishes necessity. usual ., produce, defendant." (citations omitted). Second, once witness "his 'indicia reliability.' Reliability inferred excluded, least absent 66, 2539 (footnote omitted); Mancusi Stubbs, 408 204, 213, 92 2308, 2313, 293 (1972). 34 Applying analytical framework preliminary hearing, appear issued five subpoenas her, 67-77, 2540-2545. Specifically, carried burden Barber, 724-725, 1321-1322; Mancusi, 212, 2312, hearing bore sufficient reliability, counsel opportunity cross-examine 216, 2314. 35 applied approach articulated Roberts subsequent cases raising issues. apply non-testifying co-conspirator Government 394-400, 1125-1129. "indicia reliability" one. 182-183, 2782-2783. 36 case, note raise show trial—and, so, requires. incapable jury, agreed. below neither questioned nor discussed unavailability. For deciding extent applies 37 crux presented State, proving withstand scrutiny "fraught highlight obviate." asserts erected stringent standard were, 38 suggested circumstances: "falls exception," 2539; Bourjaily, 183, 2782 enough jurisprudence holding need independently inquire statements"); Illinois, 530, 543, 2056, 2063, 514 (1986) ("[E]ven 'a exception' inadmissible purposes, nonetheless standards 'showing trustworthiness' ") citation outset 803(24), challenged 113-115, Admission satisfies accorded longstanding judicial legislative assessing types Mattox, 339; 2782; Lee, 552, 2067-2068 (BLACKMUN, dissenting) ("[S]tatements squarely possess 'the imprimatur experience' fact weigh heavily assessment their purposes") (citation contrast, e.g., Senate Judiciary Committee's Note Fed.Rule U.S.C.App., pp. 786-787; E. Cleary, McCormick Evidence 324.1, 907-909 (3d ed. 1984). almost definition, supports agree automatically passed scrutiny, every step repeatedly take. 86-87, 218-219 5; 94-95, 222-223 (Harlan, concurring result). 40 event press matter strongly recognizes "presumptively purposes," "must trustworthiness," 2539. showing, large measure resulted lacking videotape, 41 reject apparently placed Out-of-court arise wide Constitution imposes fixed prerequisites below, regarded precedent Nelson Farrey, 874 F.2d 1222, 1229 (CA7 1989) (videotape feasible, especially yet criminally charged), cert. denied, 1042, 835, 831 (1990); J. Myers, Child Witness Law Practice 4.6, 129-134 (use children, appropriate, responses untrustworthy). guidelines propounded well enhance decline read artificial litmus test propriety professional interviews defendant. 42 responds instead consideration including statement, corroborates statement. think include conclusion derives rationale permitting hearsay: 43 "The theory possible sources inaccuracy untrustworthiness lie underneath bare untested assertion brought light exposed, exist, cross-examination. But security instance superfluous; clear, instance, free risk untrustworthiness, work supererogation." Wigmore, 1420, 251 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). 44 truthfulness clear utility, basis "excited utterance" eliminate possibility fabrication, coaching, confabulation, provide assurance superfluous. §§ 1745-1764; Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 803(2)[01] (1988); Advisory 803(2), 778. Likewise, "dying declaration" "medical treatment" belief persons highly unlikely lie. 244, 340 sense impending death remove temptation falsehood, enforce strict adherence obligation oath"); Queen Osman, Cox Crim.Cas. 1, (Eng.N.Wales Cir.1881) (Lush, L.J.) ("[N]o person, immediately going presence Maker, upon lips"); Mosteller, Sexual Abuse Statements Purpose Medical Diagnosis Treatment, 67 N.C. L.Rev. 257 various specific existed added using hindsight." Huff White Motor Corp., 609 286, 292 1979). 45 required likewise drawn Our precedents "firmly rooted" 1936 (examining "whether still afford trier satisfactory evaluating statement"); 340; 88-89, 219-220 73, 2538, 2542. 2539, former similarly 544, 2063 (determining statement); Ryan, 103 Wash.2d 165, 174, 691 197, 204 (1984) ("Adequate [under ] reference corroboration act"). Thus, affirmative reason, arising made, rebutting presumption reliance exclusion 46 courts number reliable. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 201, 735 801, 811 (spontaneity consistent repetition); Morgan Foretich, 846 941, 948 (CA4 1988) (mental declarant); Sorenson, 143 Wis.2d 226, 246, 421 N.W.2d 77, (1988) age); Kuone, 243 Kan. 221-222, 757 289, 292-293 (lack fabricate). (which cite discuss approve results reach) involve application declarants, bear These are, course, exclusive, considerable leeway appropriate factors. endorse mechanical unifying principle 47 discussion above suggests, unpersuaded convict virtue inherent Cf. Delaware Van Arsdall, 673, 680, 1431, 1435, 674 "[T]he countenances marked 'there departure rule.' 2538 Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 54 330, 332, 78 (1934)). happen true truth—indeed, truth. useful probe mind statements; tending corroborate substitute 48 short, statement's Indeed, plurality Evans looked particular possessed 88, 219, appropriately indicates harmless,* rather exists presuming id., 90, 220 joined Burger, concurring) (finding all); D. Louisell Mueller, Federal 418, (1980) (discussing Evans). 49 considered Illinois "interlocking" nature codefendant's confessions confession rely corroborative physical indeed "interlock" case. 545-546, 2064-2065. cautioned danger is, fact, selective reliability." 545, 2064. concern context well: Corroboration sheds identity abuser. real partial mistakenly infer entire Furthermore, similarity between harmless-error analysis inquiry harm "admission [hearsay] [was it] poses serious threat accuracy verdict countenanced Amendment." (emphasis added). 50 Finally, unreliable, First, rests questionable reading "appear[s] respecting examined, truly," 9-202 (Supp.1989); 601(a), findings. inference ruling 115. addition, 339-340; 486, 1041-1045. earlier frustrate truth-seeking purpose hinder "enlightened development evidence," 95, 222 III 51 relied factors: 52 occurred. seem years. We're pubescent youth fantasize. themselves outside believability up. simply believe, fabricate. 53 "We come identification itself. Are identification? appears injuries occurred victim Defendants. [older [the] perpetrators. Those—the perpetrators known [younger daughter]. called identify stranger person knowledge ability recollect recall. Those statements." Of relevant, statements: "make nature," "that fabricate." relied, commit offense, identification, factors, discussed, irrelevant 55 find According "volunteered" "after clammed-up." 123. "[i]f priorinterro gation, adults, Ariz., 811. Given inadmissibility accusatory pursuant 2058, overcome presumption. 56 proceedings. Accordingly, judgment 57 ordered. 58 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 59 stands abusing her. today holds not, provided (1980). agree. My disagreement invents control ultimate violative 60 principle, exceptions, depends difficult application. this. majority errs, view, adopting impermissible part inquiry. apparent whole purpose.1 limitation, facial analytic categories, creation Court; prove unworkable square examples indicators itself invokes; contrary precedents. 61 justification decision prescind common most people says corroborated evidence. assailant tied wrists scar lower abdomen, fabricated, true. Conversely, imagine makes spontaneous indicating reliable, contains undisputed factual inaccuracies great credibility substantially undermined. Under analysis, substantial doubt Nothing result; contrary, existence thereof coming 472, 929 (collecting cases); 804(b)(5)[01] (same). Specifically review led commentator conclude flatly: "If content strengthened." 5.37, 364 (1987).2 misgivings ante, 824, correct, justify wholesale elimination consideration, derogation overwhelming consensus contrary. course free, law, demand Until today, distinction interpreting If anything, statutes requiring emphasize relevance, irrelevance, witness' sum, whatever rejecting wisdom legal community trustworthiness. 62 Far commonsense proposition, embrace it. (1986), codefendant "interlocked" far different utilized present determined looking making, 821; omits "interlock," other. unanimous recognition legitimate reliability; 546, 2064 insufficient "flowing 'interlocking' character confessions," confession) added); 557, 2070 including, inter alia, "extensive convincing petitioner's confession" "further evidence"). New Mexico Earnest, 477 648, 649, n., 2734, 2735, 539 (REHNQUIST, concurring); 219-220, opinion). 63 suggests goes admissible. 823. Once again, interlocking confessions, unequivocal suggestion: 64 "Quite obviously, pertains harmfulness reliability: confirms essentially true." Cruz York, 481 186, 192, 1714, 1719, 95 162 original). precisely heightened "[o]f reliability' directly 193-194, 1719 (citing 543-544, 2063-2064). essential element past categorical refusal consider here. 66 Fourth premised long act informant's tip, simple "because informant things, probably alleged." Alabama White, 496 325, 331, 2412, 2417, 301 (1990). Gates, 462 245, 2317, 2335, 2336, 76 527 (1983); Spinelli 393 410, 415, 584, 588, 637 (1969); Jones 362 257, 271, 80 725, 736, 697 (1960). bolster "inherent Ante, 822. discern difference believes indicate those, like not. Even endorsed purports exclude analysis. "use[d] age." 821. vocabulary skills opportunity, thereof, learn And, extrinsic considered, word prolonged contact fabricate index suspect charges third concocted false him coached child, surely testimony. contradictions measured examples, soon illogical. 68 short existing indicate, greater lesser degree, means instance. warrant ignoring excluding form apart narrow preferred unlike addressed assessed objective critical way. 69 respects: (1) abuse; (2) occurred; (3) abused statement; (4) herself father, abused. facts, coupled suggesting give rise argument vacate reversing remand opinion. 70 reasons, respectfully dissent. dissent unequivocally 1718, (1987), quoted language relies, 832, taken context. involved nontestifying incriminated instructed codefendant, confession, introduced him. Cruz, relying (1968), 193, 1719. relies paragraph discussing applicability (the not). nothing confession. states unreliable." 818. take mean government forward fails inadmissible. counterweight category unreliable. 2064, ("[A] passages detailing culpability product desire shift spread blame, curry favor, avenge himself, divert another"). sampling includes: Dorian, 803 1439, 1445 (CA8 1986); Cree, 778 474, 1985); Nick, 604 1199, 1204 (CA9 1979); Allen, 157 176-178, 755 1153, 1164-1166 814 (1987); Bellotti, 383 308, 315 (Minn.App.1986); Soukup, 376 498, 501 (Minn.App.1985); Doe, 94 N.M. 637, 639, 614 1086, 1088 (App.1980); McCafferty, 356 159, 164 (S.D.1984); Quick, M.J. 722, 724 (A.C.M.R.1986). Numerous statutory children. Myers 5.38. Aside infra, 831-832, cited proposition (1984). quotes Washington Clause; rather, clearly reveals court's statute, Wash.Rev.Code 9A.44.120 portion sentence holding: persuaded if, hindsight RCW demands more. statute determinations unavailable. 'and' conjunctive. Legislature 'or' intended disjunctive. corroboration, wholly requisite omitted; emphasis expressly for, legitimacy considering Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-1416 (1989); Ark.Rule 803(25)(A); Cal.Evid.Code Ann. 1228 (West 1990); Colo.Rev.Stat. 13-25-129 Fla.Stat. 90.803(23) 19-3024 Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, 115-10 Ind.Code 35-37-4-6 Md.Cts. Jud.Proc.Code 9-103.1 Minn.Stat. 595.02(3) Miss.Code.Ann. 13-1-403 N.J.Rule N.D.Rule 803(24); Okla.Stat., Tit. 12, 2803.1 Ore.Rev.Stat. 40.460 Pa.Cons.Stat. 5985.1 S.D. Codified Laws 19-16-38 Utah 76-5-411

Category: 0