Confrontation, Excited Utterance, and Impeachment in a Lamp Assault
Rosa is charged with assaulting her neighbor Ken with a lamp. Ken does not testify, claiming memory loss from the blow. The State offers: (1) a 911 call by Ken's daughter: 'My mom's neighbor just hit her with a lamp - he's bleeding and lying on the porch'; the dispatcher asks, 'Is the man with the lamp still there?' (2) Ken's statement to a paramedic 20 minutes later, 'Rosa hit me with the lamp,' made while Ken was in pain and drifting in and out; and (3) Ken's statement to a detective two hours later at the hospital identifying Rosa. Rosa wants to impeach Ken with Ken's 3-year-old misdemeanor shoplifting conviction and to offer Ken's text to her: 'I'm sorry I lied about the lamp.' Rosa also wants to offer evidence that Ken has a prior assault conviction. Ken is unavailable.
1. Are the 911 call and the paramedic statement admissible?
Read the worked answer
The 911 call is admissible. It was made during an ongoing emergency, while Ken was bleeding on the porch and the assailant's whereabouts were unknown. Statements made to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial, so the Confrontation Clause does not bar them. The daughter's statements also qualify as excited utterances and present sense impressions. The paramedic statement is also admissible. It was made for medical treatment and to assess Ken's condition, not to create evidence for prosecution, so it is nontestimonial. It also falls within the excited-utterance and medical-treatment hearsay exceptions. The fact that Ken is unavailable does not matter for these nontestimonial statements, and the hearsay exceptions apply.
2. Is Ken's statement to the detective at the hospital admissible?
Read the worked answer
Ken's statement to the detective two hours later is testimonial. The detective was investigating a completed assault, Ken was at the hospital, and the primary purpose of the questioning was to establish past events for use in a criminal prosecution. Under Crawford v. Washington, testimonial statements by an unavailable declarant are inadmissible unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Ken is unavailable, and Rosa had no such opportunity. No exception applies: this is not a dying declaration, and there is no forfeiture by wrongdoing because Rosa did not procure Ken's memory loss. The hospital identification must be excluded.
3. How should the court rule on the shoplifting conviction, Ken's prior assault conviction, and the text message?
Read the worked answer
The shoplifting conviction is a misdemeanor from three years ago. Under Rule 609(a)(2), a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement is automatically admissible, but shoplifting is not automatically a crime involving dishonesty in every jurisdiction; many courts treat it as a theft crime that does not bear on truthfulness. If it is not a dishonest-act crime, Rule 609(a)(1) applies only to felonies, and a misdemeanor is inadmissible. The court should exclude it. Ken's prior assault conviction is character evidence offered to show Ken was violent; under Rule 404(a)(2), the accused may offer evidence of a victim's character for violence only if it is pertinent to a self-defense claim, and specific prior acts are generally not admissible unless character is an essential element. Rosa has not shown Ken was the first aggressor. The text message is hearsay: Ken is not a party, and it is offered for its truth. It might qualify as a statement against interest under Rule 804(b)(3) because Ken is unavailable and admitting a lie could expose him to liability, but the court must find corroborating circumstances. The defense has a plausible argument, but admissibility is discretionary.