Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the confrontation clause and the admission of mr. atilebawi's statements to officer jones

Text: Mr. Banks insists that the trial court violated his constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clauses of the state and federal constitutions [15] by admitting into evidence Mr. Atilebawi's statements to Officer Jones. Mr. Banks argues that the statements were testimonial and that Mr. Atilebawi was available to testify, thus the admission thereof violated his constitutional right of confrontation as construed in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The State responds that Mr. Banks's rights to confrontation were not violated because the statements were non-testimonial and because Mr. Atilebawi, the declarant, testified at trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no violation of Mr. Banks's right to confront the witnesses against him. We affirm the determination of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Sixth Amendment in Crawford v. Washington , noted that when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The Court added that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Article I, section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution does not require a different conclusion. Mr. Atilebawi was available and in fact was cross-examined by Mr. Banks face to face. Mr. Banks was not deprived of his right to confront Mr. Atilebawi, and his contention otherwise is wholly without merit.