Opinion ID: 2621235
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Requirements of the Confrontation Clause

Text: The confrontation clause states 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 general, the confrontation clause represents a preference for live testimony, which includes the right to subject a witness to cross-examination. State v. Rohrich, 132 Wash.2d 472, 477-78, 939 P.2d 697 (1997). Where the State wishes to introduce hearsay statements against a criminal defendant, the confrontation clause requires that it show the unavailability of the declarant or that the out-of-court statement is inherently more reliable than any live in-court repetition would be. Rohrich, 132 Wash.2d at 479, 939 P.2d 697. The latter situation applies only to those firmly rooted hearsay exceptions which, by their nature, are most reliable when originally made. Id. See also White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (allowing hearsay testimony under the spontaneous declaration and medical examination exceptions to the hearsay rule without a showing that the declarant was unavailable); United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 395, 106 S.Ct. 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (allowing coconspirator statements made during the conspiracy without a showing that the declarant was unavailable to testify). Where the out-of-court statement does not fall under one of the firmly rooted hearsay exceptions, the confrontation clause requires the proponent of the statement to demonstrate that the declarant is unavailable and that the statement bears adequate `indicia of reliability.' Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (quoting Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972)). See also State v. Whelchel, 115 Wash.2d 708, 715, 801 P.2d 948 (1990); State v. Ryan, 103 Wash.2d 165, 170, 691 P.2d 197 (1984). A witness may not be considered unavailable unless the State has made a good faith effort to obtain the witness' presence at trial. Ryan, 103 Wash.2d at 170, 691 P.2d 197. See also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531. The State is not required to perform a futile act, but `if there is a possibility, albeit remote, that affirmative measures might produce the declarant, the obligation of good faith may demand their effectuation.' Ryan, 103 Wash.2d at 172, 691 P.2d 197 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531). See also ER 804(a)(5) (declarant is absent from hearing and proponent of the statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance ... by process or other reasonable means). Finally, the lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce the witness is `a question of reasonableness.' Roberts, 448 U.S. at 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 n. 22, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)). In State v. Goddard, 38 Wash.App. 509, 513, 685 P.2d 674 (1984), the Court of Appeals stated that the prosecution is required to avail itself of whatever procedures exist to bring a witness to trial. See also State v. Hobson, 61 Wash.App. 330, 336, 810 P.2d 70 (1991) (stating that the prosecution must use all available means to compel the witness's presence at trial). Pursuant to the good faith requirement, courts have required prosecutors to utilize available statutory procedures to produce a witness for trial before the witness may be considered unavailable. See, e.g., Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 723-24, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968) (holding that the prosecution failed to make a good faith effort to procure a witness for trial where it made no effort to avail itself of either a statutory provision or agency rule allowing for federal prisoners to testify in state courts); Goddard, 38 Wash.App. at 513 n. 2, 685 P.2d 674 (indicating that the State should have utilized the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, chapter 10.55 RCW, to secure a witness's testimony before the witness could be deemed unavailable).