Opinion ID: 52891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Tape-Recording of 911 Call

Text: Proctor also argues that the use of the tape-recorded 911 call at his trial was a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). He asserts that the tape-recording contained inflammatory and highly prejudicial information that should have been excluded because it was testimonial in nature. Specifically, he contests the admission of the following statements made by Yogi: (1) Proctor took the gun out of my car belong [sic] to someone else; (2) y'all know him real good; (3) he's been in the penitentiary; and (4) he's on cocaine. Because Proctor objected to the admission of the 911 tape on confrontation grounds, this court reviews his claim of error de novo. See, e.g., United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 326 (5th Cir.2007). The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI. In Crawford v. Washington , the Supreme Court held that the right to confrontation bars the admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The Court declined to provide a comprehensive definition of testimonial, but noted that a testimonial statement is typically a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact and includes statements that were made under circumstances that would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for later use at trial. Id. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citations omitted). In Davis v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 2276, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), the Supreme Court considered whether an interrogation that occurred during a 911 call produced testimonial statements. The Court held that [s]tatements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Id. Conversely, statements are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. Id. The Court noted that a 911 call is ordinarily not designed primarily to establish or prove some past fact, but to describe current circumstances requiring police assistance. Id. However, the Court cautioned that a conversation which begins as an interrogation to determine the need for emergency assistance can evolve into testimonial statements once that purpose has been achieved. Id. at 2277. The Court then examined the 911 call in question, and held that the trial court's admission of the 911 recording did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The Court noted that: (1) the caller was describing the events as they were happening; (2) the caller was facing an ongoing emergency; (3) the nature of what was asked and answered was necessary to resolve the present emergency rather than learn what happened in the past; and (4) the caller's answers were frantic. In conclusion, the Court held that the circumstances of the interrogation on the 911 recording indicate that the caller was not testifying as a witness, but rather was enabling police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Id. Viewing the facts of this case in light of Davis, Yogi's statements to the 911 operator were nontestimonial. Yogi's call to 911 was made immediately after Proctor grabbed the gun and fired it twice. During the course of the call, he recounts what just happened, gives a description of his brother, indicates his brother's previous criminal history, and the fact that his brother may be under the influence of drugs. All of these statements enabled the police to deal appropriately with the situation that was unfolding. The statements about Proctor's possession of a gun indicated Yogi's understanding that Proctor was armed and possibly dangerous. The information about Proctor's criminal history and possible drug use necessary for the police to respond appropriately to the emergency, as it allowed the police to determine whether they would be encountering a violent felon. Id. at 2276. Proctor argues that the emergency had already passed, because he had run away with the weapon at the time of the 911 call and, therefore, the 911 conversation was testimonial. It is hard to reconcile this argument with the facts. During the 911 call, Yogi reported that he witnessed his brother, a felon possibly high on cocaine, run off with a loaded weapon into a nightclub. This was an ongoing emergency-not one that had passed. Proctor's retreat into the nightclub provided no assurances that he would not momentarily return to confront Yogi and Fairley. Further, Yogi could have reasonably feared that the people inside the nightclub were in danger. Overall, a reasonable viewing of the 911 call is that Yogi and the 911 operator were dealing with an ongoing emergency involving a dangerous felon, and that the 911 operator's questions were related to the resolution of that emergency. Because the tape-recording of the 911 call is nontestimonial, it does not implicate Proctor's right to confrontation, and its admission was not in error. See United States v. Thomas, 453 F.3d 838, 844 (7th Cir.2006) (concluding that tape-recording of 911 call from an anonymous caller is nontestimonial and, therefore, does not implicate the Confrontation Clause).