Davis v. Washington

Background Davis was arrested after Michelle McCottry called 911 and told the operator that Davis had beaten her with his fists and then left. At trial, McCottry did not testify, but the 911 call was offered as evidence of the connection between Davis and McCottry's injuries. Davis objected, arguing that presenting the recording without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine McCottry violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the call was not "testimonial" and was therefore different from the statements at issue in ''Crawford. Factors that were determinative in the Court's analysis were: • McCottry was "speaking about events as they were actually happening," rather than describing past events; • "McCottry's call was plainly a call for help against bona fide physical threat"; • The "elicited statements were necessary to be able to resolve the present emergency, rather than simply to learn ... what had happened in the past" • The fact that McCottry was providing frantic answers over the phone, in an untranquil environment. == Hammon v. Indiana ==

Davis v. Washington was decided alongside Hammon v. Indiana.'' In Hammon, responding to a domestic disturbance call, police found Amy Hammon on the porch appearing frightened and Herschel Hammon inside. Ultimately, the wife signed an affidavit stating that Herschel had broken their furnace, shoved her down on the floor into the broken glass, and hit her in the chest, among other things. However, at Herschel's trial, Amy Hammon refused to testify.'' • The interrogating officer stated that he heard no arguments nor saw anything being broken while at the apartment; • The affidavit responses were elicited after the interrogating officer had already questioned Amy Hammon once before; • Ms. Hammon was interrogated in a separate room from her husband. == Thomas's Concurrence/Dissent ==

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He argued that though McCottry's statements were not testimonial, the Court should not "guess" at the primary motive behind the statements. ==References==