Document: 502 U.S. 346 112 S.Ct. 736 116 L.Ed.2d 848 Randall D. WHITE, Petitionerv.ILLINOIS. No. 90-6113. Argued Nov. 5, 1991. Decided Jan. 15, 1992. Syllabus At petitioner White's trial on charges related to a sexual assault upon S.G., 4-year-old girl, the court ruled that testimony recounting S.G.'s statements describing crime was offered by her babysitter, mother, an investigating officer, emergency room nurse, and doctor admissible under state-law hearsay exceptions for spontaneous declarations made in course of securing medical treatment. The also denied motion mistrial based presence at failure testify. White found guilty jury, Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause challenge Ohio v. Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597. concluded this Court's later decision United States Inadi, 475 387, 106 1121, 89 390, foreclosed any rule requiring that, as necessary antecedent introduction testimony, prosecution must either produce declarant or show is unavailable. Held: does not require before admits declaration examination rule, find Pp. 352-358. (a) This rejects argument amicus curiae Clause's limited purpose prevent abusive practice prosecuting defendant through presentation ex parte affidavits, without affiants ever being produced trial, only situation which would apply out-of-court admitted accepted exception be those few cases where statement character such affidavit, S.G. "witness against" within meaning because did fit description. Such narrow reading Clause, virtually eliminate its role restricting admission decisions, see, e.g., Mattox States, 156 237, 15 337, 39 L.Ed. 409, comes too late day warrant reexamination. 352-353. (b) Although Roberts contains language might suggest generally requires unavailable may into evidence, expansive negated supra, U.S., 392-400, S.Ct., 1124-1129. As Inadi recognized with respect co-conspirator statements, evidentiary rationale admitting regarding receiving care are contexts provide substantial guarantees their trustworthiness. But same factors contribute statements' reliability cannot recaptured in-court testimony. A has been moment excitement—without opportunity reflect consequences one's exclamation—may justifiably carry more weight trier fact than similar relative calm courtroom. Similarly, procuring services, knows false cause misdiagnosis mistreatment, carries special credibility think replicated courtroom Where proffered sufficient come firmly rooted satisfied. Establishing applicable unavailability have practical benefits while imposing pointless litigation costs. 353-357. (c) misplaces reliance Coy Iowa, 487 1012, 108 2798, 101 857, Maryland Craig, 497 ----, 110 3157, 111 666, from he draws general child should permitted showing necessity—i.e., protect child's physical psychological well-being. Those involved question what procedures constitutionally required guarantee defendant's confrontation rights once witness testifying, there no basis importing "necessity requirement" much different context established rule. 357-358. 198 Ill.App.3d 641, 144 Ill.Dec. 722, 555 N.E.2d 1241 (1990), affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined, SCALIA THOMAS, joined except discussion States' proposed phrase. J., filed concurring part judgment, SCALIA, joined. Gary R. Peterson, Springfield, Ill., petitioner. Arleen C. Anderson, Chicago, respondent. Stephen L. Nightingale, Washington, D.C., curiae, supporting THE CHIEF JUSTICE Court. 1 In case we consider whether "spontaneous declaration" "medical examination" required. We agree conclusion. 2 Petitioner convicted jury aggravated criminal assault, residential burglary, unlawful restraint. Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, &Par; 12-14, 19-3, 10-3, (1989). events giving rise then four years old. Testimony early morning hours April 16, 1988, Tony DeVore, awakened scream. DeVore went bedroom witnessed leaving left house. 6 Tr. 10-11. knew friend Tammy Grigsby. Id., 27. asked had happened. According DeVore's stated put hand over mouth, choked her, threatened whip if she screamed "touch[ed] wrong places." Asked point touched, identified vaginal area. 12-17. 3 Grigsby, returned home about 30 minutes later. Grigsby testified daughter appeared "scared" "little hyper." 77-78. proceeded repeated claims her. "put mouth front part." 79. noticed bruises red marks neck previously. 81. called police. 4 Officer Terry Lewis arrived later, roughly 45 after scream first DeVore. questioned alone kitchen. Lewis' summary indicated essentially story reported including "used tongue private parts." 110-112. 5 After investigation, approximately heard scream, taken hospital. She examined Cheryl Reents, Dr. Michael Meinzen. Each response questioning, again provided account identical one given Lewis. never petitioner's trial. State attempted two occasions call but apparently experienced emotional difficulty brought each instance testifying. App. 14. defense attempt neither made, nor it make, finding 105-106. 7 objected grounds Lewis, Meinzen testify assault. overruled objection. With could pursuant declarations.1 Petitioner's objections Reents' Meinzen's similarly overruled, both treatment.2 "presence [and] testify." 8 conviction. It held operated discretion accorded state law ruling qualified Reents exception. 647, 657, 727-732, 1241, 1246-1251 (1990). reject Clause3 challenge, principally contained 597 (1980). our 390 (1986), Supreme discretionary review, granted certiorari, 500 1681, 114 76 (1991), constitutional permitting challenged violated right.4 9 preliminary matter considered below urged support contends claim rejected particular abuse common 16th 17th century England: Because do description, suggests Clause. urges position, order further conclude exception, argues, sought i.e., circumstances surrounding statement's utterance principal accusing incriminating defendant. 10 prior cases. discussions these cases, going back least far 409 (1895), included historical origins evidence existing time adopted careful "not equate prohibitions prohibiting statements," Idaho Wright, (1990) 3139, 3146, 638 (citations omitted). Nonetheless consistently "stee[r] middle course," 68, n. 9, 2540, recognizes "hearsay rules designed values," California Green, 399 149, 155, 90 1930, 1933, 26 489 (1970), "stem roots." Dutton Evans, 400 74, 86, 91 210, 218, 27 213 (1970). itself, Government relies, allowed recorded admitted. But, view, result justified unlike came presented reexamination approach.5 11 therefore now turn contention conviction vacated. transcript containing probable-cause hearing, who subject counsel hearing. case, used evidence. However, subsequent supra. 12 conspiracy. initial matter, proposition "no unavailability." 392, 1124. To contrary, rather establishing "a wholesale revision evidence" guise ibid., "Roberts read answered, authority cited, own facts." 394, 1125. So understood, stands analysis inquiry when were judicial proceeding. Ibid. 13 Having clarified scope there. particular, refused extend requirement all statements. Our rested factors. First, former "provide conspiracy's replicated, even testifies matters court," 395, 1126. Also, declarant's likely change status occurs, simply calling hope having him repeat poor substitute full significance flows conspiracy operating force. 14 Second, observed little benefit, any, accomplished "unavailability rule."6 will work bar absolutely statements; unavailable, available can introduced. 396, 1126-1127. Nor adds meaningfully trial's truth-determining process. Many declarants subpoenaed defense, regardless requirement, Compulsory Process Clause7 treat witnesses hostile aid defendants obtaining live 396-398, 1126-1128. And improve accuracy factfinding, impose additional burdens factfinding repeatedly locate keep continuously declarant, interest stand. An injected admissibility litigated appeal. 398-399, 1127-1128. These observations, although expressed evaluating force hand. note trustworthiness.8 They thus materially issue introduced themselves proceeding, consequently threat lost value replaced 16 preference like importance cross examination, "the greatest legal engine invented discovery truth." 158, 1935. Thus courts receipt 17 clear probative value, duplicated testifying court. exclude strictures height wrong-headedness, basic promotion " 'integrity process.' 1020, 2802, 857 (1988) (quoting Kentucky Stincer, 482 730, 736, 107 2658, 2662, 96 631 (1987). noted, qualifies "firmly rooted" so trustworthy adversarial testing expected add reliability. 3149. Given reliability, costs, see reason differently Inadi. contrary exactly kind "wholesale revision" laws expressly disavowed excluding aegis embraced 18 second line argument, presses us recent decisions involving child-testimony child-sexual 666 Both Craig constitutionality face across open charged sexually assaulting child. vacated resulted behind screen, particularized procedure avert risk harm upheld via closed circuit television necessity. necessity 19 misplaced. right quite separate requirements imposes predicate declarations. speak latter question. Coy, raises concerns lying periphery address, 1016, 2800. There announced 20 For foregoing reasons, judgment 21 Affirmed. 22 Justice whom joins, judgment. 23 reaches correct precedents. I write separately jurisprudence evolved manner perhaps inconsistent text history itself. unnecessarily rejects, dicta, suggestion regulate See ante, truth complicated confused relationship between 24 provides "[i]n prosecutions, accused shall enjoy . confronted against him. ." Const., Amdt. 6. plain critical phrase purposes "witnesses him." Any unraveling understanding begin Unfortunately, area, assumed (1980); Lee Illinois, 476 530, 2056, 514 (1986); assumption warranted supported 25 drafters intended mean. 176, 8, 1944, (1970) (Harlan, concurring); 95, 222-223, result); Baker, Right Confrontation, Hearsay Rules, Due Process—A Proposal Determining When May Used Criminal Trials, Conn.Law Rev. 529, 532 (1974). strictest construe him" confer confront cross-examine actually appear Wigmore's view: "The net result, then, infrajudicially, certain way, namely, cross-examination—not secretly away accused. Constitution prescribe kinds testimonial (dying like) infrajudicially—this depends being—but mode followed—i.e., cross-examining procedure—in ordinary infrajudicially." J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1397, p. 159 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974) (footnote omitted) (emphasis modified). Wigmore view endorsed Harlan 94, 222. finds recently observed: 28 literally contain prohibition [hearsay] since 'witnesses him.' applied Amendment's prosecution, noun 'witness'—in 1791 today—could mean 'who sees thing; personally present' 'one gives testimony' 'testifies,' '[i]n proceedings, [one who] make[s] solemn oath, making proof some court.' N. Webster, American Dictionary English Language (1828) added). Buchanan, Linguae Britannicae Vera Pronunciatio (1757). (one sees') cover excluded words following noun: obviously refers give trial." [----, 3173, 666] (dissenting opinion). 29 Wigmore-Harlan purest form tension apparent evolution long precedent, discussed below. pure improper construction Relevant sources earlier nonetheless, narrower 1980 well correct. 16th-century England, magistrates interrogated prisoner, accomplices, others interrogations "intended information prisoner be, probably was, present." Stephen, History Law England 221 (1883). "proof usually depositions, confessions letters, like; occasioned frequent demands 'accusers,' him, face. 326. 1364, ("there appreciation person stand witness"; rather, obtain "information consulting informed persons court"); W. Holdsworth, 227-229 (3d ed. 1944). infamous Sir Walter Raleigh treason 1603 Crown's primary confession alleged (the repudiated obtained torture) well-known example feature procedure. Pollitt, Confrontation: Its Modern Dress, J.Pub.L. 381, 388-389 (1959); 333-336; 216-217, 226-228. 31 Apparently abuses, common-law began develop during centuries. 23; 389-390. Story believed codified law, Story, Commentaries 662 (1833), previously right. Salinger 272 542, 548, 47 173, 175, 71 398 (1926) ("The originate provision Amendment, exceptions"). abuses occurred England. 242, 339, (1895) object [Confrontation Clause] depositions sometimes civil lieu personal cross-examination ."); 156, 1934 ("It vice gave impetus trying 'evidence' consisted solely affidavits secured examining magistrates, denying accuser face-to-face encounter fact"); id., 179, 1946 concurring) ("From scant tentatively meant constitutionalize barrier flagrant trials anonymous accusers, absentee witnesses"); 222 result) "paradigmatic evil aimed at" "trial affidavit"). 32 appears indication record understood simultaneously evolving confrontation. explored point.1 language, however, difficult how why proposition. 33 "If translate use today, read: 'In present Nothing 18th-century equivalent connote control particularly ill-chosen hearsay. 222-223 (opinion result). 34 standards developed implement limits Amendment. Ever (1980), interpreted 66, 2539, otherwise bears "particularized trustworthiness," ibid. See, 3141; Bourjaily 483 171, 183, 2775, 2782-2783, 97 implies bars unreliable concern affidavit accusers defendant, makes distinction presented. seem permit tried reliable. Cf. Art. III, ("No Treason unless Witnesses overt Act, Confession Court"). Reliability properly due process concern. strain protection already them. 35 suggested functional equivalent, contemplation proceedings. interpretation ways consistent current jurisprudence, largely If carefully formulated, approach apply, entirely crucial 36 example, victim's police officer arguably Attempts draw proceedings entangle multitude difficulties. Few types categorically characterized reach rights. Not government officials deemed automatically (imagine victim blurts out accusation passing unsuspecting social-services worker told possible abuse). listener (or both) contemplating devotes attention application standard case. 37 Thus, faced supports text. Despite tension, believe interpret along lines faithful provision's history. One formulation follows: federal extends implicated extrajudicial insofar they formalized materials, confessions. discrete category materials historically abused prosecutors means depriving benefit adversary process, 242-243, 239-240, approach, construed beyond directed. 38 vast majority them decided confessions,2 type lies core greatly simplify context. Furthermore, avoid problem posed focus law. 355-356, 8. explained implications State's adopt States. satisfy establish individual newly created continue doing until became standard. square Neither notion exceptions. intent 352; 3141-3142; 393, 1125, 218; 1933-1934, fear edged direction. respectfully appropriate reconsider pertains join applies "[a] relating startling event condition stress excitement caused condition." 727, 1246 (Decision Fourth District). Rev.Stat., ¶ 115-13 (1989), provides: "In violation Section 12-13, 12-15 12-16 'Criminal Code 1961', personnel diagnosis treatment descriptions symptom, pain sensations, inception external source thereof reasonably pertinent rule." ..... him......" VI. take given, therefore, falls relevant position advanced gained single Justice. Dutton, 93-100, 221-225 concurring). By rule," introducing production declarant. compulsory favor." Indeed, factor led indicia ---- - 3141-3142, (1990); 182-184, doubt rooted." centuries old, Evidence, 1747, 195 1976), date century. Thompson Trevanion, Eng.Rep. 179 (K.B.1694). currently Federal Rules Rule 803(2), nearly four-fifths Brief Amici Curiae California, et al., pp. 15-16, (collecting statutes cases). 803(4), equally widely among 31-32, (same). address explicitly "[t]he leaves doubt, hearsay." 63, 2537 (citing 156-157, 1934-1935, (1970)). cited passage Green reiterates noted affidavit. hearsay" goes (affidavits hearsay), encompass hearsay, general. Reynolds 98 145, 158-161, 244 (1879) (testimony trial); 240-244, 338-340, (same); Motes 178 458, 471-474, 993, 998-999, 44 1150 (1900) "preliminary trial"); Pointer Texas, 380 400, 406-408, 85 1065, 1069-1070, 923 (1965) (preliminary hearing testimony); Douglas Alabama, 415, 418-420, 1074, 1076-1077, 934 (codefendant's confession); Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 4, 86 1245, 1246-1247, 314 (1966) Barber Page, 719, 722-725, 88 1318, 1320-1322, 255 (1968) Bruton 391 123, 126-128, 3, 1620, 1622-1624, Russell, 392 293, 294-295, 1921, 1922-1923, 1100 (per curiam) Berger 393 314, 314-315, 540, 541, 508 (1969) 152, 1932 police); Mancusi Stubbs, 408 204, 213-216, 92 2308, 2313-2315, 293 (1972) (prior testimony).

Category: 0