On February 1, 2001, Michelle McCottry called 911 and told the operator her ex-boyfriend, Adrian Davis, had beat her with his fists and fled the scene. Davis was arrested and charged with felony violation of a domestic no-contact order. During the trial, McCottry did not testify and the prosecution used McCottry’s 911 call as evidence of her injuries caused by Davis (Davis v. Washington, n.d.). Davis objected to the use of the 911 call as evidence, citing his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause (Davis v. Washington, n.d.). This clause states that the defendant has the right to confront any witness against him. His objection was denied as her 911 call was not testimonial, and he was convicted (Davis v. Washington, n.d.). The issue
…show more content…
Washington was decided based on Hammon v. Indiana (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). In this case, Hershel Hammon was charged with domestic abuse after police responded to a call at his house, questioned him and his wife, and took a statement from his wife (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). The court used this statement and entered it as evidence, as Mrs. Hammon did not testify, citing that it was an excited utterance, and therefore was not testimony, rather it was evidence. Davis appealed his conviction on the basis that his wife was not under duress, nor was there an immediate emergency which she was helping resolve. Instead, the police officer took her statement in a calm setting and she signed it (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Davis’ appeal because he was unable to cross examine his wife’s statement. Based on this decision, the court decided in Davis v. Washington that in the case of an emergency, the excited utterance and 911 call can be used as evidence as they are not testimonial in nature (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.).
In conclusion, in the case of Davis v. Washington, McCottry’s 911 call was not considered testimony. Since she was simply calling 911 to resolve an emergency, her statement was evidence of the crime and therefore did not violate Davis’ Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness. Furthermore, this 911 call was not even considered a witness statement due to it being classified as evidence. Rather than telling a story of the past, McCottry was seeking aid and because of this, her 911 call was
Washington was decided based on Hammon v. Indiana (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). In this case, Hershel Hammon was charged with domestic abuse after police responded to a call at his house, questioned him and his wife, and took a statement from his wife (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). The court used this statement and entered it as evidence, as Mrs. Hammon did not testify, citing that it was an excited utterance, and therefore was not testimony, rather it was evidence. Davis appealed his conviction on the basis that his wife was not under duress, nor was there an immediate emergency which she was helping resolve. Instead, the police officer took her statement in a calm setting and she signed it (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.). The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Davis’ appeal because he was unable to cross examine his wife’s statement. Based on this decision, the court decided in Davis v. Washington that in the case of an emergency, the excited utterance and 911 call can be used as evidence as they are not testimonial in nature (Hammon v. Indiana, n.d.).
In conclusion, in the case of Davis v. Washington, McCottry’s 911 call was not considered testimony. Since she was simply calling 911 to resolve an emergency, her statement was evidence of the crime and therefore did not violate Davis’ Sixth Amendment right to cross examine a witness. Furthermore, this 911 call was not even considered a witness statement due to it being classified as evidence. Rather than telling a story of the past, McCottry was seeking aid and because of this, her 911 call was