Opinion ID: 1211390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the admissibility of arthur jenkins's statements

Text: 2. As previously stated, Jenkins's uncle, Arthur Jenkins, provided statements to the police that tended to incriminate Jenkins. Arthur has since died. The State sought to admit Arthur's statements to the police under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule, and the trial court ruled that the statements were admissible. [33] A recent United States Supreme Court decision, however, limits the viability of the necessity exception to the hearsay rule. In Crawford v. Washington , [34] the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial statements from an unavailable witness unless the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. [35] Particularized guaranties of reliability cannot substitute for confrontation and cross-examination. Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. [36] Although the Supreme Court left for another day a comprehensive definition of a testimonial statement, it did establish that at the very least, a statement is testimonial if it is made with the involvement of government officers in the production of testimonial evidence, which includes police interrogations. [37] It went on to note that it was using interrogation in its colloquial, not technical sense, and averred that this included structured police questioning. [38] Since Crawford v. Washington , we have interpreted testimonial statements to include those statements made by witnesses to police officers investigating a crime. [39] Arthur Jenkins's statements to the police were testimonial because they were the product of questioning by police officers investigating the murder of Doyle Butler. [40] Jenkins has never had the opportunity to cross-examine his uncle about those statements. Therefore, we conclude that Arthur Jenkins's statements to the police are inadmissible at Jenkins's trial and the trial court's ruling to the contrary was error. [41] Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.