Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

Opinion of the Court 

cross-examination.”  App. 107.  The trial court deferred rul-
ing and, in the meantime, allowed the State to put on testi-
mony  regarding  the 
.357-caliber  bullets  on  Morris’ 
nightstand.  Accordingly, both the State and Hemphill elic-
ited  undisputed  testimony  from  a  law  enforcement  officer
that a 9-millimeter cartridge and .357-caliber bullets were
recovered from Morris’ nightstand.

The  trial  court  then  revisited  the  State’s  application  to 
introduce  Morris’  plea  allocution.    Hemphill’s  counsel  ob-
jected  again,  citing  this  Court’s  decision  in  Crawford  v. 
Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004): “I think it is [a] Crawford 
violation.  I think the evidence is being offered to incrimi-
nate Mr. Hemphill.  I’m being deprived of the opportunity 
to examine Mr. Morris, and I don’t see how it would not be 
a Crawford violation.”  App. 160.1 

A few days later, the trial court announced its ruling.  The 
court relied on People v. Reid, 19 N. Y. 3d 382, 971 N. E. 2d 
353.  In Reid, New York’s highest court held that a criminal
defendant  could  “ope[n]  the  door”  to  evidence  that  would
otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause 
if  the  evidence  was  “ ‘reasonably  necessary  to  correct  [a] 
misleading  impression’ ”  made  by  the  defense’s  “ ‘evidence 
or  argument.’ ”    Id.,  at  388,  971  N. E. 2d,  at  357  (quoting 
People  v.  Massie,  2  N. Y. 3d  179,  184,  809  N. E. 2d  1102, 
1105 (2004)).  The trial court applied Reid as follows: 

“[A] significant aspect of the defense in this case is that
Morris, who [was] originally prosecuted for this homi-
cide, was, in fact, the actual shooter and that as such, 
the defendant, Hemphill, was excluded as the shooter. 
There is, however, evidence contrary to the argument 

—————— 

1 The State responded that Morris’ plea allocution was not testimonial
because  it  did  not  “incriminate  or  point  a  finger  at  all  against  Mr. 
Hemphill.”  App. 160.  Before this Court, the State does not dispute that
the plea allocution was testimonial, and so the Court expresses no view 
on the matter.