Title: State v. Kemp
Citation: 212 S.W.3d 135
Docket Number: SC 87371
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: January 30, 2007

212 S.W.3d 135 (2007)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Lamont C. KEMP, Appellant.
No. SC 87371.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
January 30, 2007.
*138 Margaret M. Johnston, Office of Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge.
A jury convicted Lamont Kemp of felonious restraint and unlawful use of a weapon for holding his girlfriend, Jackie Washington, hostage at gunpoint beginning the evening of October 10, 2003, and ending at approximately 8:30 a.m. the following day. Because the state was unable to procure Jackie as a witness at trial, it introduced evidence of Jackie's out-of-court statements through the testimony of Kemp's neighbors and a portion of the 911 call made the morning of October 11. Kemp appeals the trial court's admission of Jackie's out-of-court statements. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the statements under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay evidence and that admission of the statements violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The judgment is affirmed.
On the morning of October 11, 2003, Laura Johnson was watching television in her living room on the outskirts of Columbia, Missouri, while her husband Michael slept in their bedroom. At about 8:30 a.m., Laura heard someone banging on the door and a woman screaming, "Help me, please help me." Laura looked out the living room window and saw a woman wearing a little green chemise that covered her below the waist. She was naked above the waist.
Michael, wakened by the banging and screaming at the door, emerged from the bedroom. Laura reported to him what she had seen. Michael put on some pants and ran out the front door, but he saw nothing. He asked Laura where the woman had gone. Laura told him the woman had run down the street. Michael ran after the woman and saw her running south on Scott Boulevard. She was still naked above the waist and falling to the ground as she tried to run. Michael described her as "frantic" and "emotionally distraught"; she was crying, having trouble breathing, and shaking. When Michael caught up to her, she told him that her boyfriend had been holding her hostage at gunpoint all night.
Michael brought the woman, who identified herself as Jackie Washington, back to the Johnson home. On the way there, Jackie fell several times. She and Michael entered the Johnson home through the back door. Once inside, Jackie remained frantic. She was crying and bending down and taking deep breaths. According to Laura, she looked "very frantic, very upset, very emotional," and "all in a fit." *139 Laura heard her saying, "Oh God, please help me. Please help me."
Laura called 911. Although only Laura spoke directly to the operator, several persons, including Jackie, can be heard speaking in the background:
The Columbia police department dispatched five officers to Kemp's apartment. The officers knocked on the door and on the side of the house and called the residence from a cell phone. No one answered. After about an hour, a sergeant on the scene reported to his district captain, and the captain called a Code Red, which is a call for other officers to assist in the investigation. Approximately twenty tactical officers and fifteen crisis negotiators subsequently arrived. The newly dispatched officers began calling the residence. After a couple of minutes Kemp answered and he emerged from the apartment. Inside the apartment, the officers found three guns: a .40 caliber Smith &amp; Wesson handgun and a .357 revolver, both of which were loaded, and an unloaded .22 caliber handgun. The .40 caliber Smith &amp; Wesson and the .22 were both found in the trash can. All three guns had been stolen from the office of a Columbia businessman about a month before they were found in Kemp's apartment.
A Boone County grand jury charged Kemp with felonious restraint and receiving stolen property (class C felonies) and unlawful use of a weapon (a class D felony). The state subpoenaed Jackie Washington for trial. The state contended that it "expended a great amount of resources attempting to get her served with the subpoena. She was doing her best to avoid *144 that service. And we . . . expended every good-faith effort we possibly could to get her there." Jackie did not testify.
Kemp's first jury trial ended in a mistrial on March 3, 2004. On March 8, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), which changed the procedure under the United States Constitution, Amendment VI, for admitting the out-of-court statements of unavailable witnesses against criminal defendants. Prior to the beginning of Kemp's second jury trial on March 12, 2004, the defense filed a motion in limine to exclude Jackie's statements. The court ruled that Jackie's statements were excited utterances and that they did not violate the Confrontation Clause under Crawford.
At trial, the court, over defense counsel's objection, allowed the state to play the following 39-second portion of the 911 recording:
The court allowed the following testimony of Michael Johnson:
The court allowed the following testimony of Laura Johnson:
The jury found Kemp guilty on all three counts. The defense moved for a new trial on all counts. The court denied the motion on Count I (felonious restraint) and Count II (unlawful use of a weapon). The court granted the motion on Count III (receiving stolen property), but the state entered nolle prosequi on that count before a new trial was held. The court sentenced Kemp, a prior and persistent offender, to seven years in the department of corrections for felonious restraint and four years in the department of corrections for unlawful use of a weapon, with the sentences to run concurrently.
This Court ordered transfer of the case after opinion by the court of appeals. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. Since the case was transferred, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2006).
This appeal focuses upon the admission of the out-of-court statements of Jackie Washington. Two hurdles must be cleared for this evidence to be properly admitted. First, the statements must survive traditional hearsay analysis. Second, because this is a criminal case, the statements must survive Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis.
Kemp argues that the trial court erred in admitting Jackie's out-of-court statements because they did not fall under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 223-24 (Mo. banc 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
"A hearsay statement is any out-of-court statement that is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that depends on the veracity of the statement for its value." State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218, 224 (Mo. banc 2006). Jackie did not testify at trial, but her statements about what happened to her the night of October 10-11, 2003, were introduced through the testimony of Michael and Laura Johnson and the 911 call. These out-of-court statements were used to prove the truth of the matter asserted: that Kemp had held Jackie at gunpoint all night. The statements are hearsay.
In order to be admissible, Jackie's statements must fall under an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence. The trial court admitted the statements under the excited utterance exception. "The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule depends on a startling or unusual occurrence sufficient to overcome normal reflection such that the ensuing declaration is a spontaneous reaction to the startling event." Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Mo. banc 1995) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted).
State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702, 718 (Mo. banc 2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Shortly before Jackie made the disputed statement, Michael saw her running down the street, naked from the waist up and covered by only a nightgown from the waist down. He saw her falling down as she tried to run. He described her as breathing heavily, crying, and shaking. When she made the statement, she had not yet covered her partially naked body, although she was running down a street in her neighborhood at 8:30 on a Saturday morning. There can be no doubt that Jackie's statement may be taken as expressing *147 her true belief, because it was "made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses as a result of the shock produced by the event." State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d  at 718. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Michael's testimony.
Laura Johnson's testimony and the 911 call both arise from the time Jackie was brought inside the Johnson home and the 911 call was made. Laura testified that Jackie was crying, bending over and taking deep breaths. Laura described her as looking "very frantic, very upset, very emotional, saying, `Oh God, help me. Please help me,' and just all in a fit." When she made the statements admitted through the 911 recording, Jackie sounds breathless and frantic. At other times during the call, she can be heard saying, "Oh God," and breathing heavily enough to prompt the operator to ask if she needed an ambulance. Again, Jackie's behavior leaves no doubt that for a period of time after she was brought inside the Johnson home, she was still under the "immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses as a result of the shock produced by the event." State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d  at 718. Her statements can be taken as expressing her true belief. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Laura's testimony and portions of the 911 recording.
Kemp argues that an excited utterance is only admissible where there is "some independent proof that the event could have occurred."[1]State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 235 (Mo.App. E.D.1995); accord State v. Kemp, 919 S.W.2d 278, 280-82 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). The Court does not need to determine whether independent proof that the event could have occurred is required, because it was present in this case. Jackie running frantically down the street partially naked at 8:30 a.m. on a Saturday, and the police finding three weapons in Kemp's apartment, two of which were loaded, provide independent proof that Kemp could have held Jackie at gunpoint all night in his apartment.
Having survived traditional hearsay analysis, Jackie's out-of-court statements must now clear the second hurdle: the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which applies to all criminal prosecutions. Kemp argues that admission of the statements violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Although the analysis is similar to the hearsay analysis, this is a separate and distinct evidentiary determination.
The Confrontation Clause provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. In Crawford v. Washington, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless [the witness] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). The testimonial nature of a statement is what *148 makes the declarant a "witness" that the accused has the right to confront. Id. at 51, 124 S. Ct. 1354. Although the Court did not precisely define "testimonial," it noted that "[s]tatements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations" are testimonial "even under a narrow standard." Id. at 52, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354. The Court also declined to define "interrogation." Id. at 53 n. 4, 124 S. Ct. 1354.
Davis v. Washington required the Court to "determine more precisely which police interrogations produce testimony." U.S. ___, ___, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2006). The issue in Davis was "whether, objectively considered, the interrogation that took place in the course of the 911 call produced testimonial statements." Id. at 2276. The Court held that:
Id. at 2274.
The Court reasoned that 911 calls, at least initially, have a different objective than that of a classic police interrogation: When we said in [Crawford] that "interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within [the] class" of testimonial hearsay, we had immediately in mind (for that was the case before us) interrogations solely directed at establishing the facts of a past crime, in order to identify (or provide evidence to convict) the perpetrator. The product of such interrogation, whether reduced to a writing signed by the declarant or embedded in the memory (and perhaps notes) of the interrogating officer, is testimonial. . . . A 911 call, on the other hand, and at least the initial interrogation conducted in connection with a 911 call, is ordinarily not designed primarily to "establis[h] or prov[e]" some past fact, but to describe current circumstances requiring police assistance. . . . This is not to say that a conversation which begins as an interrogation to determine the need for emergency assistance cannot . . . "evolve into testimonial statements" once that purpose has been achieved.
Id. at 2276 (internal citations omitted).
Davis provides a functional analysis for determining whether an out-of-court statement is testimonial and, thus, subject to the Confrontation Clause restrictions of Crawford. The Davis analysis must be applied to the 911 call made by Laura Johnson to determine if it was an interrogation to "enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency," or an interrogation "to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution" when there is "no such ongoing emergency." Davis, 126 S. Ct.  at 2274. The circumstances of the situation must be viewed objectively. Id.
Any reasonable listener would recognize that Jackie was facing an ongoing emergency. She had last seen Kemp on his back porch. Early in the call, she hypothesized that he was still in his apartment. Later, she said that he had chased her, that she did not know if he knew where she was, and that he was "probably knocking on the doors" of the neighborhood. Jackie's varied answers to questions about Kemp's location, together with the fact that the police had not arrived to secure the area, indicate that no one was certain *149 where Kemp was, where he was going, or what he might do. All that was known was that, according to Jackie, Kemp was armed, had been smoking crack, and had been holding her at gunpoint all night. Furthermore, Laura described Jackie as "really scared" and "just hysterical." Jackie can be heard on the 911 call breathing heavily and saying, "Oh God." These circumstances indicate that, although Jackie was inside the Johnson home, she and her neighbors were in the midst of an ongoing emergency.
The questions the operator asked were directed at enabling police assistance to meet the ongoing emergency. As the Supreme Court noted in Davis, statements necessary to resolve the present emergency include the "operator's effort to establish the identity of the assailant, so that the dispatched officers might know whether they would be encountering a violent felon." Id. at 2276. Thus, questions about Kemp's name were directed at resolving the present emergency.
In addition, questions about Kemp's address and possible location would help the police determine where to look first. Questions about the gun and where Kemp hid it would inform the police whether they should expect to encounter an armed person. Questions about drug use would warn the police of possible erratic or dangerous behavior upon arrival. Questions about the dogs would inform the police how many dogs to expect and whether the dogs were hostile. Questions about Kemp's telephone number were necessary to allow the police to call the apartment because no one was answering the door. Finally, questions about whether Jackie needed an ambulance were necessary to determine if anyone on the scene needed emergency medical care. These questions were also directed at resolving the present emergency.
The court only allowed thirty-nine seconds of the 911 call to be played for the jury. In the excerpt, Jackie can be heard saying her name, Kemp's name, that Kemp had a gun, and that "he had, he had the gun on me, he had me sittin' down with him like this while he's wavin' the gun around talkin' `bout he's seein' people. This been goin' on all night." The court was clearly being cautious in allowing only this short excerpt. Jackie's statements in this excerpt, like her statements in much of the remainder of the call, were made "under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency" and were therefore nontestimonial. Id. at 2274. The Confrontation Clause does not prohibit their admission. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). The court did not err in admitting these statements. See United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057, 1060-61 (8th Cir.2006); Middleton v. Roper, 455 F.3d 838, 854-57 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882, 895-896 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Brun, 416 F.3d 703, 706-08 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 643-45 (8th Cir.2004).
Crawford, 541 U.S.  at 51, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354.
Id. at 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354.
When Jackie Washington made the disputed statements to Michael and Laura Johnson, she was not making "[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact." Id. at 51, 124 S. Ct. 1354. She was not "[a]n accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers." Id. She was not giving testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a formal trial, and her conversations with Michael and Laura were not police interrogations. Jackie made the statements to Michael and Laura to seek immediate emergency help, not to bear testimony. Her statements to them were not testimonial and the Confrontation Clause does not bar their admission. The trial court did not err in admitting these statements.
Moreover, recent decisions from the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, indicate that Confrontation Clause protection does not extend to situations where governmental or law enforcement involvement does not exist. United States v. Peneaux, 432 F.3d 882, 895-896 (8th Cir.2005); Ferguson v. Roper, 400 F.3d 635, 638-640 (8th Cir.2005); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 643-45 (8th Cir.2004); United States v. Reyes, 362 F.3d 536, 540-541 (8th Cir.2004).
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
[1]  In adopting the requirement of "some independent proof that the event could have occurred," the Post court acknowledged its departure from the majority rule. Post, 901 S.W.2d  at 235.