Davis v. Washington

Background

A woman who called 911 said her former partner was attacking her; the 911 operator questioned her while help was sent. The police saw fresh injuries, but the woman did not testify and the recording was played at the man’s trial, leading to conviction and review. In a separate case, police questioned a wife at the scene, had her sign an affidavit about past battery, and she did not appear at her husband’s bench trial; the officer repeated her account and the husband was convicted.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether out-of-court statements to police are “testimonial” and thus barred by the right to confront witnesses. It adopted an objective test: statements are nontestimonial when made during interrogation whose primary purpose is to get police help for an ongoing emergency, and testimonial when the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for later prosecution. Applying that test, the Court found the 911 caller’s urgent reports were nontestimonial, but the wife’s detailed interview and signed affidavit were testimonial.

Real world impact

The decision lets courts admit many 911 recordings taken to obtain immediate help, while excluding police interview statements aimed at documenting past crimes unless the witness is unavailable or forfeiture by wrongdoing is proven. The Indiana matter was sent back for the State to raise or prove forfeiture; the Washington outcome was affirmed. The ruling does not exhaustively classify all statements and leaves line-drawing to trial courts.

Dissents or concurrances

A Justice concurred in part and dissented in part, warning the new “primary purpose” test is hard to apply and urging a narrower focus on formalized statements like affidavits or sworn testimony.