Absent Victim: 911 Call, Hospital Statements, and Confrontation
The State prosecutes Luis for aggravated battery. The victim, Ana, does not testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege because she faces a pending drug charge. The State offers four items. First, Ana's 911 call 90 seconds after the attack, saying 'Luis just hit me with a bottle.' Second, Ana's statement to the emergency-room nurse 45 minutes later, 'My boyfriend Luis hit me.' Third, a hospital business record stating 'assault victim-facial laceration.' Fourth, Ana's sister's testimony that Ana told her the next day, 'Luis did it.' The defense objects on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. The prosecutor argues Ana is unavailable and that all statements are admissible. The judge must rule on each item. Luis's lawyer argues Ana's absence makes every statement testimonial.
1. Is the 911 call admissible?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: yes, the 911 call is admissible. The call is hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, but it fits the excited-utterance exception under Rule 803(2). Ana called 90 seconds after being struck, while still under the stress of the attack, and her statement related to the startling event. It may also qualify as a present-sense impression, though the excited-utterance ground is stronger. The Confrontation Clause does not bar it because the call was not testimonial. Under Davis v. Washington, a 911 call made to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency is nontestimonial. Ana was reporting a recent attack and seeking help; the dispatcher was not conducting a structured interrogation to preserve testimony for trial. Luis's argument that Ana's absence makes every statement testimonial is too broad. The call is admissible.
2. Are Ana's statement to the nurse and the hospital business record admissible?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: the nurse statement is admissible; the business record is admissible only with redaction. The statement 'My boyfriend Luis hit me' was made to an emergency-room nurse 45 minutes after the attack. It falls within Rule 803(4), statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, because identifying the cause and perpetrator of an injury is pertinent to treatment. It is also nontestimonial: Ana was speaking to medical personnel for treatment, not to police to create a trial record. The business record is admissible under Rule 803(6) if it was made in the regular course of hospital business. But the phrase 'assault victim' is a conclusion or opinion, not a neutral medical fact. The court should redact that phrase and admit the objective entry 'facial laceration.' The record is nontestimonial because it was created for treatment and billing, not for litigation. The defense objection should be sustained only as to the conclusory language.
3. Is the sister's testimony admissible, and does forfeiture by wrongdoing apply?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: the sister's testimony is inadmissible hearsay, and forfeiture does not apply. Ana's statement to her sister the next day, 'Luis did it,' is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. No exception fits. It is not an excited utterance after a full day, not a medical statement, and not a business record. The Confrontation Clause is not the main obstacle because the statement to a family member is likely nontestimonial, but the hearsay rule independently bars it. Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires the defendant to have procured the witness's unavailability by wrongdoing with the intent to prevent testimony. Ana's invocation of the Fifth Amendment because of her own pending drug charge is not conduct procured by Luis. The prosecutor cannot rely on forfeiture. The sister should not be permitted to repeat Ana's accusation.