Court Opinion

ID: 9367122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 01:00:23.641188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.907097
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60261         Document: 00516627849             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                              FILED
                                                                         January 30, 2023
                                       No. 22-60261                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                     ____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Decorie Deshun Bates,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 1:21-CR-87-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Decorie Deshun Bates was convicted by a jury of possession of a
   firearm by a felon. The district court denied his motion for a new trial under
   Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 in which he challenged the admission
   of audio recordings and related transcripts of phone calls to 911. He appeals

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60261      Document: 00516627849          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/30/2023

                                    No. 22-60261

   the denial of that motion. We review the district court’s decision for an abuse
   of discretion. United States v. Arnold, 416 F.3d 349, 360 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Bates argues that the admission of evidence as to the 911 calls violated
   the Confrontation Clause. He maintains that the calls contained testimonial
   statements because the caller, with whom he had a domestic dispute, placed
   the calls for the purpose of having him arrested.
          The evidence indicates that the caller made the 911 calls because Bates
   had a firearm at her residence, pulled it out during an argument, and resisted
   leaving the home. The caller discussed what was happening, described Bates,
   indicated that Bates fled from the home with the handgun, and detailed his
   location. In a follow-up call, the caller gave an update on Bates’s whereabouts
   and indicated that he may have discarded the firearm in public. The operator
   asked for information concerning the situation, sought to understand how to
   respond, and primarily attempted to deal with the apparent crises.
          The circumstances of the calls reflect that the caller’s statements were
   not testimonial, and, therefore, the admission of evidence as to the calls did
   not violate the Confrontation Clause. See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813,
   822, 826, 827 (2006); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 68 (2004).
   The evidence supports that the calls were made to enable police assistance to
   address an unfolding emergency. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 827; United States v.
   Proctor, 505 F.3d 366, 370-72 (5th Cir. 2007). The operator elicited answers
   to permit a resolution of the ongoing situation and to enable the police to be
   dispatched safely and with the appropriate information. See Davis, 547 U.S.
   at 827, 828. While the second call was made after Bates fled, the emergency
   had not been quelled because Bates either still had the firearm or disposed of
   it in public. See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 363 (2011); Proctor, 505
   F.3d at 372. An objective review of the situation otherwise does not reflect
   that the caller’s statements were procured with a primary aim of creating an

                                         2
Case: 22-60261        Document: 00516627849         Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/30/2023

                                     No. 22-60261

   out-of-court substitute for testimony. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 822, 827, 828;
   United States v. Polidore, 690 F.3d 705, 717 (5th Cir. 2012). Even if the caller
   intended for the calls to result in an arrest or later prosecution, her subjective
   purpose is not relevant or dispositive. See Bryant, 562 U.S. at 360; Polidore,
   690 F.3d at 718.
          Bates also maintains that the recordings and related transcripts of the
   calls were inadmissible hearsay. He argues that the caller’s statements were
   not a genuine account of her present-sense impressions or excited utterances
   given that she was acting principally to inculpate him.
          Assuming that the evidence was admitted for the truth of the matter
   asserted therein, which seemingly is belied by the district court’s instruction
   to the jury that the evidence was offered to provide context to the actions of
   the responding officers, see United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650, 659 (5th Cir.
   2017), the record establishes that the evidence was excepted from the hearsay
   rule, see Fed. R. Evid. 801; Fed. R. Evid. 802. Because the caller gave
   details regarding an ongoing situation, discussed incidents that she witnessed
   or experienced and that she believed presented an imminent threat, and made
   the statements contemporaneously with or soon after she saw or experienced
   the events, the evidence fell within the present-sense impression exception.
   See Fed. R. Evid. 803(a); Polidore, 690 F.3d at 720. The excited-utterance
   exception also applies because the phone calls were made while the caller was
   under the stress of the excitement caused by her interactions and experiences
   with Bates and offered details as to the startling events. See Fed. R. Evid.
   803(2).
          Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a
   new trial. See Arnold, 416 F.3d at 360. The judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                           3