Document: 547 U.S. 813 (2006) DAVIS v. WASHINGTON No. 05-5224. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 20, 2006. Decided June 19, 2006.[*] *815 Jeffrey L. Fisher, by appointment the Court, 546 1074, argued cause for petitioner in With him on briefs was Nancy Collins. Richard D. Friedman, 1088, 05-5705. Kimberly A. Jackson. James M. Whisman respondent brief were Norm Maleng, Deborah Dwyer, and Lee Yates. Thomas Solicitor General Indiana, Steve Carter, *816 Attorney General, Nicole Schuster Julie Hoffman, Deputy Attorneys General. Dreeben States as amicus curiae urging affirmance Clement, Assistant Irving Gornstein, Joel Gershowitz. Mr. Gornstein Dreeben.[] *817 JUSTICE SCALIA delivered opinion Court. These cases require us to determine when statements made law enforcement personnel during a 911 call or at crime scene are "testimonial" thus subject requirements Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. I A The relevant Davis Washington, 05-5224, emergency operator February 1, 2001. When answered initial call, connection terminated before anyone spoke. She reversed Michelle McCottry answered. In ensuing conversation, ascertained that involved domestic disturbance with her former boyfriend Adrian Davis, this case: "911 Operator: Hello. "Complainant: What's going on? He's here jumpin' me again. Okay. Listen carefully. Are you house an apartment? I'm house. there any weapons? usin' his fists. Has he been drinking? Okay, sweetie. I've got help started. Stay line me, okay? line. *818 Do know last name? It's Davis. Davis? what's first Adran What is it? Adrian. Adrian? Yeah. middle initial? Martell. runnin' now." App. pp. 8-9. As conversation continued, learned had "just r[un] out door" after hitting McCottry, leaving car someone else. Id., 9-10. started talking, but cut off, saying, "Stop talking answer my questions." 10. then gathered more information about (including birthday), told purpose coming "to get stuff," since moving. 11-12. described context assault, id., 12, which police their way. "They're gonna check area first," said, "and they're come talk you." 12-13. arrived within four minutes observed McCottry's shaken state, "fresh injuries forearm face," "frantic efforts gather belongings children so they could leave residence." 154 Wash. 2d 291, 296, 111 P.3d 844, 847 (2005) (en banc). State charged felony violation no-contact order. "The State's only witnesses two officers who responded call. Both testified exhibited appeared *819 be recent, neither officer testify injuries." Ibid. presumably have whether assailant, she did not appear. Over Davis's objection, based Clause Amendment, trial court admitted recording exchange operator, jury convicted him. Washington Appeals affirmed, 116 81, 64 661 (2003). one dissenting justice, also concluding portion identified testimonial, if other portions admitting them harmless beyond reasonable doubt. 2d, 305, P.3d, 851. We granted certiorari. 975 (2005). B Hammon 05-5705, late night 26, 2003, "reported disturbance" home Hershel Amy Hammon. 829 N.E.2d 444, 446 (Ind. 2005). They found alone front porch, appearing "`somewhat frightened,'" "`nothing matter,'" 446, 447. gave permission enter house, where saw "a gas heating unit corner living room" "flames . partial glass front. There pieces ground it flame emitting from unit." p. 16. Hershel, meanwhile, kitchen. He "that wife `been argument' `everything fine now' argument `never became physical.'" N.E.2d, By point back inside. One remained Hershel; went room Amy, "again asked [her] what occurred." Ibid.; 17, 32. several attempts *820 participate Amy's police, see 32, rebuffed. later "became angry insisted [he] stay separated Mrs. we can investigate happened." 34. After hearing account, "had fill sign battery affidavit." 18. handwrote following: "Broke our Furnace & shoved down floor into broken glass. Hit chest threw down. Broke lamps phone. Tore up van couldn't Attacked daughter." 2. violating probation. subpoenaed, appear subsequent bench trial. called questioned recount authenticate affidavit. Hershel's counsel repeatedly objected admission evidence. See 11, 13, 21. At point, prosecutor defend affidavit because "under oath," defense "That doesn't give opportunity cross examine [the] person allegedly drafted it. Makes mad." 19. Nonetheless, "present sense impression," "excited utterances" "are expressly permitted these kinds even declarant available testify," 40. "informed argument. That irrate [sic] over fact daughter boyfriend's physical being verbal informed Hammon, part breaking things believe stated broke phone, lamp, heater. *821 "She pushed onto ground, head heater punched twice believe." 17-18. judge guilty both charges, 40, Indiana affirmed part, 809 945 (2004). statement admissible state-law purposes excited utterance, 449; `testimonial' given taken significant preserving potential future use legal proceedings," "the motivations questioner central concerns," 456, 457; oral under standards, 458. It concluded that, although testimonial wrongly admitted, doubt, largely bench. 458-459. II Amendment provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right confronted against him." Crawford 541 36, 53-54 (2004), held provision bars "admission witness unless unavailable testify, defendant prior cross-examination." critical holding, resolution now us, phrase "testimonial statements." Only sort "witness" meaning 51. character separates hearsay while traditional limitations upon evidence, *822 Our set forth "[v]arious formulations" core class "`testimonial'" statements, ibid., unnecessary endorse them, "some qualify definition," 52. Among those, "[s]tatements course interrogations," ibid.; 53. questioning generated deponent's Crawfordwhich recorded custody, having Miranda warnings possible suspect herself"qualifies conceivable definition" "`interrogation,'" U.S., 53, n. 4. therefore define term, except say "[w]e [it] its colloquial, rather than technical legal, sense," "one imagine various definitions ., need select among case." present clear, precisely interrogations produce testimony. Without attempting exhaustive classification statementsor response interrogationas either nontestimonial, suffices decide hold follows: Statements nontestimonial interrogation circumstances objectively indicating primary enable assistance meet ongoing emergency. indicate no such emergency, establish prove past events potentially prosecution.[1] *823 III Crawford, sufficed case "even solely concerned hearsay, object, fall squarely class." Moreover, just described, facts spared meant "interrogations." today does permit luxury indecision. inquiries call[2] sense, "qualifies definition." must decide, therefore, applies hearsay; and, so, qualifies. question suggested explicitly held: text reflects focus [on hearsay]. `witnesses' accusedin words, those `bear testimony.' 1 N. Webster, An American Dictionary *824 English Language (1828). `Testimony,' turn, typically `a solemn declaration affirmation establishing proving some fact.' accuser makes formal government bears testimony casual remark acquaintance not." limitation clearly reflected constitutional fairly said mark merely "core," perimeter. aware early invoking common-law confrontation involve defined.[3] Well 20th century, own jurisprudence carefully applied context. See, e. g., Reynolds States, 98 145, *825 158 (1879) (testimony Clause, forfeited procuring witness's absence); Mattox 156 237, 240-244 (1895) (prior deceased cross-examination); Kirby 174 47, 55-56 (1899) (guilty pleas conviction others show property received stolen); Motes 178 458, 467, 470-471 (1900) (written deposition cross-examination available); Dowdell 221 325, 330-331 (1911) (facts regarding conduct certified judge, clerk court, official reporter relate defendants' guilt innocence hence "witnesses" Clause). Even cases, conforming reasoning Ohio Roberts, 448 56 (1980),[4] never practice dispensed unavailability U. S., 57-59 (citing cases), arguable exception, 58, 8 (discussing White Illinois, 502 346 (1992)). Where dispense requirementseven Roberts approachthe issue nontestimonial. Bourjaily 483 171, 181-184 (1987) (statements unwittingly Government informant); Dutton Evans, 400 74, 87-89 (1970) (plurality opinion) prisoner another). Most applying state counter-parts *826 most sortsworn judicial proceedings depositions oathwhich invites scope limited very category. But progenitors limit exclusionary rule depositions, supra, 52, 3. event, do think protections readily evaded note-taking policeman recite unsworn declarant, instead deposition. Indeed, caseEnglish American, federalcan cited, then, whether, considered, took place produced statements. "interrogations class" immediately mind (for us) directed crime, order identify (or provide evidence convict) perpetrator. product interrogation, reduced writing signed embedded memory (and perhaps notes) interrogating officer, testimonial. is, terms 1828 dictionary quoted "`[a] fact.'" (The solemnity investigating well enough established severe consequences attend deliberate falsehood. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 288 (CA2 2006) (false federal investigators violate 18 C. § 1001); Reed, 2005 WI *827 ¶ 30, 280 Wis. 68, 85, 695 N.W.2d 315, 323 (state offense "knowingly giv[e] false [an] intent mislead performance duty").) hand, least conducted ordinarily designed primarily "establis[h] prov[e]" fact, describe current requiring assistance. difference between apparent face things. speaking actually happening, "describ[ing] events," Lilly Virginia, 527 116, 137 (1999) opinion). Sylvia Crawford's hours occurred. listener would recognize (unlike Crawford) facing Although might narrative report absent imminent danger, plainly bona fide threat. Third, nature again viewed objectively, elicited necessary able resolve simply learn (as happened past. true operator's effort identity dispatched encountering violent felon. Hiibel Judicial Dist. Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 177, 186 And finally, level formality interviews striking. responding calmly, station series questions, officer-interrogator taping making notes answers; frantic answers provided environment tranquil, far make out) safe. *828 conclude acting witness; testifying. weaker substitute live testimony" trial, Inadi, 475 387, 394 (1986), like Lord Cobham's Raleigh's Case, 2 How. St. Tr. (1603), Jane Dingler's ex parte husband King Dingler, Leach 561, 168 Eng. Rep. 383 (1791), Crawford. each actors evidentiary products communication aligned perfectly courtroom analogues. not. No goes proclaim seek help. seeks cast unlikely role pointing cases. None involves Brasier, 199, 202 (1779), example, young rape victim, "immediately home, injury" mother. 200, Rep., 202. helpful girl's screams aid chased assailant. time victim story account events. This begins cannot, put it, "evolve statements," 457, once has achieved. case, gained needed address exigency moment, appears ended (when drove away premises). quiet, proceeded pose questions. maintained *829 on, unlike "structured questioning" occurred presents great problem. Just as, Fifth purposes, "police will distinguish almost instinctively questions secure safety public elicit suspect," New York Quarles, 467 649, 658-659 (1984), courts which, become Through limine procedure, should redact exclude do, unduly prejudicial otherwise hear complete may heard portions. classify identifying agree parts challenge assume correct. Determining much easier task, different entirely clear investigation possibly conductas, indeed, testifying acknowledged, 25, progress; arguments crashing throw break anything, 25. *830 arrived, fine, 14, immediate threat person. second time, challenged seeking Davis) "what happening," Objectively viewed, primary, indeed sole, crimewhich course, done. formal. followed warning, tape-recorded, While features certainly strengthened statements' aspectmade apparent, exercise nail truth eventsnone essential point. separate room, (who tried intervene), receiving replies "investigat[ion]." "striking resemblance" civil-law examinations, shared here. declarants actively defendantofficers forcibly prevented participating interrogation. deliberately recounted, questioning, how began progressed. over. Such obvious testimony, direct examination; inherently testimonial.[5] *831 argue resolved For reasons find comparison compelling, unpersuasive. alone, unprotected protected), apparently danger aid, telling present-tense showed immediacy; *832 remove described. officer's execute affidavit, order, testified, "[t]o previously." necessarily reject Court's implication virtually "initial inquiries" 453, oppositethat yield answers. already disputes "[o]fficers whom dealing assess situation, safety, victim." Hiibel, 186. exigencies often mean one, cry nor enabling end threatening alleged immaterial. Cf. 3.[6] IV Respondents joined number amici, contend offenses casesdomestic violencerequires greater flexibility particular *833 type notoriously susceptible intimidation coercion ensure occurs, gives windfall. not, however, vitiate guarantees effect allowing go free. Kyllo 533 27 (2001) (suppressing illegal search). defendants undermine process coercing silence victims, acquiesce. duty assist guilt, refrain ways destroy integrity criminal-trial system. reiterate Crawford: forfeiture wrongdoing extinguishes claims essentially equitable grounds." 62 Reynolds, 158-159). obtains absence forfeits confrontation. take position standards demonstrate forfeiture, using Federal Rule Evidence 804(b)(6), codifies doctrine, generally preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, see, Scott, 284 758, 762 (CA7 2002). tend follow same practice, Commonwealth Edwards, 444 Mass. 526, 542, 830 158, 172 required, instance, "hearsay including out-of-court considered." 545, 174. approach undoubtedly recourse doctrine less necessary, prosecutors "reliability" easily defendant's procurement absence. *834 overruling ability protect proceedings. determined finding wrongdoing, operates Hammon's (if asked) remand claim properly raised meritorious. * affirm judgment reverse inconsistent opinion. ordered. THOMAS, concurring part. 36 abandoned general reliability inquiry long employed admissibility describing "inherently, permanently, unpredictable." 10 (emphasis original). Today, mere years decided adopts equally unpredictable test, district divining "primary purpose" interrogations. Ante, 822. Besides difficult apply, test characterizes "testimonial," inadmissible, little resemblance recognized targeted Because implicate appropriately concur dissent *835 provides "[i]n ." S. Const., Amdt. 6. operative "witnesses him," interpreted narrowly, reach broadly, many whose offered 42-43; 346, 359-363 (1992) (Thomas, J., judgment). narrowest interpretation conflict history giving rise adoption precedent, rejected reading. 50-51; White, 360 (opinion Thomas, J.). Rejection view broadest application surrounding supports conclusion developed target practices bail committal statutes passed reign Queen Mary, namely, "civil-law mode particularly examinations accused." 43, 50; 361-362 J.); 242 (1895). predominant [Marian committal] statute institute systematic witnesses." J. Langbein, Prosecuting Crime Renaissance 23 (1974) added). required examination accusers, transcription days transmission judges case. *836 10, 23. came used lieu personal appearance witness. 43-44; 9 W. Holdsworth, History Law 223-229 (1926). Many inadmissible matter bear practices, Framers proposed prevent. 51 (contrasting "[a]n off-hand, overheard remark" abuses Accordingly, intended word read broadly include 94 (Harlan, result) (rejecting "assumption prevent overly broad exceptions rule"). squared language workable, accurate, "`[W]itnesses,'" "`bear testimony.'" (quoting (1828)). "`[t]estimony'" supra). Admittedly, detailed framework addressing plain "testimony" definition endorsed degree deemed "testimonial." requirement regulated "extrajudicial contained formalized materials, affidavits, confessions." 365 Affidavits, *837 are, nature, through process. Likewise, confessions, extracted manner, carry sufficient indicia constitute accordingly, resemblance," accusers Marian statutes.[1] 21-34. concedes itself "clearly involve[d] defined ante, 824, fails acknowledge cites narrower category materials proposed. 3.[2] Interactions witnesses) resemble proceedingsand casesonly interactions somehow rendered "formal." custodial, pursuant Arizona, 384 436 (1966). 38. warnings, terms, inform prospective *838 "`anything says law.'" Dickerson 530 428, 435 (2000) Miranda, 479). imports officer.[3] cited informal certain circumstances. 824-826. Instead, sole basis apprehension "readily evaded" applicable materials. 826. solution risk evasion needlessly overinclusive. sought regulate prosecutorial abuse occurring accused, reaches technically evade ibid. formal, production prosecution attempted means circumventing literal confrontation, Coy Iowa, 487 1012 (1988). prosecution, preventing without simultaneously excluding good faith. standard disconnected abuse; yields predictable results comply law. (criticizing *839 unpredictability pre-Crawford test); 364-365 judgment) (limiting discrete historically abused "greatly simplify" many, most, respond otherwise, perspective situation 656 (1984) ("Undoubtedly [deciding situation] act host different, instinctive, unverifiable motivestheir others, desire obtain incriminating suspect"). Assigning "largely motives," primacy requires constructing hierarchy rarely presentand reliably discernible. inevitably be, quite simply, fiction. repeated invocation "objectiv[e]" 822, 827, 828, 830, suggests reference all, inquire function served Certainly avoid pitfalls led tests dependent subjective intentions officers.[4] cost *840 Additionally, shift control determination tethered actual performed Neither appropriate framework. dialogue.[5] Nor taking render sufficiently examinations; Mirandized accompanied similar formality. Finally, suggestion offer women's 447 2005) (prosecution subpoenaed present); banc) (State unable locate trial). excluded extends combined holding admissible, *841 reveals difficulty purpose[s]" investigation. draws explanation "no progress," instead, "part conduct," 829, "enabl[ing] emergency," 828. foreclose possibility constituted continuing wife, further presence action. hardly remarkable abusively toward officers, 829-830, behavior sheds little, any, light violence resumed left transforming dismisses "past conduct" "ongoing 829.[6] shed gathering, name assailant prosecution. pronouncement "primary" *842 motive behind calls nothing guess courts. adopted workable attempt forbidden respectfully NOTES [*] Together certiorari Indiana. [] Briefs amici reversal filed Civil Liberties Union et al. Jordan Gross, Steven R. Shapiro, Lenora Lapidus, Ken Falk, Aaron Caplan; National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Timothy P. O'Toole, Catharine F. Easterly, Andrea Roth, Corinne Beckwith, Pamela Harris, Sheryl McCloud. Illinois Lisa Madigan, Gary Feinerman, Michael Scodro, Linda Woloshin Anderson Gansner, Christopher Morano, Chief Connecticut, respective Troy Alabama, Terry Goddard Mike Beebe Arkansas, Bill Lockyer California, John Suthers Colorado, Carl Danberg Delaware, Charles Crist, Jr., Florida, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Phill Kline Kansas, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Reilly Massachusetts, Cox Michigan, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Jon Bruning Nebraska, George Chanos Nevada, Patricia Madrid Mexico, Jim Petro Ohio, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, E. Long South Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, William Sorrell Vermont, Darrell V. McGraw, West Patrick Crank Wyoming; Cook County, Devine Veronica Calderon Malavia; Counsel Children Anthony Franze; District Ryan David Cohn, Susan Axelrod, Joshua Engel; Network End Domestic Violence Antonia B. Ianniello, Rips, Jennifer K. Brown, Lynn Hecht Schafran, Joan Meier, Fernando Laguarda. Kym Worthy Baughman Wayne [1] refers because, explained below, presently interrogationswhich generate responses. imply, willing exempt volunteered open-ended (Part Sir Walter Raleigh letter Cobham result sustained questioning. (1603).) exists, final analysis declarant's interrogator's evaluate. [2] If operators themselves agents callers. deciding point), consider acts police. [3] Webb, 103, 103-104 (Super. Eq. 1794) (per curiam) (excluding accused); Atkins, Tenn. 229 1807) witness); Johnston State, 59 (Err. 1821) (admitting written deponent, cross-examine); Finn Commonwealth, 26 Va. 701, 707-708 (1827) still alive, though outside jurisdiction); Hill, 20 607 (App. 1835) Richards, 35 434, 436-439 (1837) preliminary precise words Bostick 22 344 (1842) declined People Newman, 5 Hill 295 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1843) alive); Campbell, 30 124, 125 1844) Valentine, 29 225 (1847) decedent Kendrick 479, 491 (1850) trial); Houser, Mo. 431, 439-441 (1858) deponent alive). [4] "Roberts condition[ed] falls `firmly rooted exception' `particularized trustworthiness.'" 60 66). overruled restoring requirements. [5] criticizes "neither [Confrontation] Clause," post, 842 part). former: acknowledged "exhaustive interrogation," them. objective "workable." dissent, formulate own, anything deserves description "workable"unless thinks distinction "formal" "informal" 836-838, qualifies vague acknowledging "also process," 838, cautioning stop "us[ing] confrontation," hard "predictable," adopt narrow situations address. (Indeed, dissent's eminently agree, disagree, disposition 05-5705.) charge "targeted 842, describes magistrates, characterized high formality, 835-836: dispute utterance. longer examining magistrates; have, 18th-century forebears Punishment 67-68 (1993)who perform investigative functions Origins Adversary Trial 41 view, lies offenses. Restricting forms originally recipe extinction. (2001). [6] Police investigations way impugned characterization fruits Investigations crimes harms lead arrests. hope inculpatory "nontestimonial" gathered, control. Their saying exists cannot so. governs conduct, of, investigatory collection offends provision. govern Clause; are. Like presume 823, refer counterparts collectively police." recent too, nearly excludable highly 365, confessions codefendants due occurrence custody documents. Douglas 380 415, 416 (1965) (signed confession); Brookhart Janis, (1966) confession accomplice's arrest, Brief Petitioner O. T. 1965, 657, 10-11); Bruton 391 123, 124 (1968) (custodial interrogation); Russell, 392 293 following warning codefendant's Opposition 1967, 920, 5-6). false, speaker, 826-827, honesty conversations important. ordinary meanings terms. 655-656, 6 (subjective motivation considering exception (1966), applicable); Rhode Island Innis, 301 (1980) incriminatory occurred); Whren 517 806, (1996) (refusing evaluate Fourth reasonableness officers' motivations). ultimately per se term Respondent 46; Amicus Curiae 14. Some factors relies apply "actively [victim]" thereby "prevented apart 818, 830. Similarly, [by McCottry] over" recounted operator. 295-296, 846-847

Category: 0