Opinion ID: 2582433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: past or present tense

Text: ¶ 52 The timing of the officer's interrogation is the foremost and most useful factor in determining whether a given statement is testimonial. In Davis, the Court concluded Michelle McCottry's statements were nontestimonial as they were made while she was alone, unprotected by police, in immediate danger, and  facing an ongoing emergency.  Id. at 2276 (emphasis added). The Davis Court emphasized the fact that McCottry was speaking about events as they were actually happening, rather than `describing past events,' and therefore concluded the primary purpose of McCottry's interrogation was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Id. at 2276-77 (quoting Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 137, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999)); see also id. at 2279 ([McCottry] was seeking aid, not telling a story about the past and her present-tense statements showed immediacy.). ¶ 53 In contrast, the facts in the consolidated case, Hammon v. Indiana , convinced the Court that Amy Hammon's statements were testimonial because they were made after the emergency had ended. The Court explained, the interrogating officer testified that he heard no arguments or crashing and saw no one throw or break anything and [w]hen the officers first arrived, Amy told them that things were fine, and there was no immediate threat to her person. Id. at 2278 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the Court concluded the emergency had ceased and the interrogating officer was not seeking to determine (as in Davis ) `what is happening,' but rather `what happened.'  Id. (emphasis added). [1]