Opinion ID: 2586208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Lewandowski's Testimony

Text: {19} The officer testified at trial that when he encountered the victim at the scene on October 13, she was upset, she was crying, she was shaking, she was continually crying. This exact language does not appear in the officer's police report. Instead, the report states, I observed Ms. Romero with no shoes on her feet and crying for help. I observed redness and numerous cut marks on her neck. I observed Ms. Romero's voice changing and she was struggling to talk and continually clearing her throat. When Defendant attempted to impeach the officer on this issue, the officer testified the taped interview was part of his report, and the victim's emotional state was evident during that interview. The Court of Appeals held the victim's statements to the officer at the scene were not testimonial under Crawford. Romero, 2006-NMCA-045, ¶ 68, 139 N.M. 386, 133 P.3d 842. {20} The State does not challenge that holding. The State does challenge the Court of Appeals' failure to permit the officer to testify about his observations of the victim during the taped interview. In a sense, this challenge is similar to the challenge the State has raised with respect to the SANE nurse testimony. {21} Crawford held that testimonial out-of-court statements are barred under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, unless the witness is unavailable, and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Although Crawford declined to create a definitive list of statements that will always qualify as testimonial, the Court did say, [s]tatements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are also testimonial under even a narrow standard. Id. at 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Davis further developed the concept of testimonial, and said that when an interrogation, as part of an investigation, about potentially criminal past conduct is conducted, a declarant's statements are testimonial. Davis, 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct. at 2278. Davis further explained that the level of formality of the interrogation is a key factor in determining whether statements are testimonial within the meaning of Crawford. Id. Under Crawford and Davis, the victim's taped, station-house interview was clearly testimonial for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment. {22} The State acknowledges that the admission of the taped interview in its entirety was an error under Crawford. However, the State argues that the officer's testimony about his subjective observations of the victim's emotional state during the taped interview was not testimonial. Neither Crawford nor Davis address this argument. Nor did the Court of Appeals. The State contends that because the officer was available for cross-examination and because his testimony was based on firsthand observation, it was not hearsay and did not present a Crawford issue. We agree. {23} Based on the Court of Appeals' analysis and the holdings of Crawford and Davis, the taped interview of the victim was testimonial and should not have been played for the jury and admitted at trial. See Romero, 2006-NMCA-045, ¶ 52, 139 N.M. 386, 133 P.3d 842. The officer's testimony regarding his observations of the victim during the taped interview was admissible under Crawford and Davis.