Hearsay and Confrontation in a Domestic Violence Trial
The state charges Marcus with domestic abuse battery. The victim, Dana, does not appear at trial. After a hearing, the court finds Dana unavailable because she invokes her Fifth Amendment privilege concerning her own drug possession. The state offers four items. First, a 911 call in which Dana, sobbing, says, 'He just punched me in the face and I'm locked in the bathroom.' Second, bodycam video recorded 25 minutes later, after Marcus is handcuffed in the back of a patrol car, in which an officer asks Dana what happened and she says, 'He punched me twice and took my phone.' Third, an emergency-room record in which Dana told a nurse, 'My boyfriend hit me.' Fourth, Dana's sworn testimony from a preliminary hearing at which defense counsel cross-examined her about her drug use and her bias in favor of Marcus. Marcus objects to each item on hearsay and Confrontation grounds.
1. Is the 911 call admissible?
Read the worked answer
The 911 call is admissible. Dana's statement is an excited utterance under La. C.E. art. 803(2): she was sobbing, the event was startling, and she made the statement while locked in the bathroom immediately after being punched. The Confrontation Clause does not bar it because the primary purpose of the 911 call was to obtain emergency help while the attack was ongoing or just ended, not to create a record for prosecution. Under Davis v. Washington, statements to a 911 operator describing an ongoing emergency are nontestimonial. The recording can be authenticated through the 911 custodian or the operator.
2. Is the bodycam statement admissible?
Read the worked answer
The bodycam statement should be excluded. It is hearsay: the officer's question and Dana's answer are offered for the truth of the matter. An excited-utterance argument is weaker because 25 minutes had passed and Marcus was handcuffed, so the emergency had ended. More importantly, the statement is testimonial. The officer was interrogating Dana to establish what happened for prosecution, not to meet an ongoing emergency. Dana is unavailable, but Marcus had no prior opportunity to cross-examine this statement. Under Crawford v. Washington and La. C.E. art. 804, the Confrontation Clause bars its use unless Marcus had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The hearsay exception cannot cure the constitutional defect.
3. Are the emergency-room record and the preliminary-hearing testimony admissible?
Read the worked answer
The emergency-room record is admissible if properly authenticated as a business record and as a statement for medical diagnosis or treatment under La. C.E. arts. 803(4) and 803(6). Dana's statement that 'my boyfriend hit me' was made to a nurse for treatment, and the identity of the attacker is pertinent to diagnosis and safety. It is nontestimonial because the primary purpose was medical treatment, not forensic investigation. The state should redact any opinion about fault or cause that is not pertinent to treatment. The prior preliminary-hearing testimony is also admissible. Dana is unavailable because she invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege. Under La. C.E. art. 804(b)(1), former testimony is admissible if the party against whom it is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine. Defense counsel did cross-examine Dana about drug use and bias, and the testimony was under oath. Crawford is satisfied because Marcus had that prior opportunity.