ND Bar study materials
ND Bar study resources

Recorded 911 Call and Substitute Analyst in a Shooting Trial

ND Bar · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Recorded 911 Call and Substitute Analyst in a Shooting Trial

Marcus is on trial in state court for shooting into a neighbor's occupied home. The prosecution offers two items. First, a recording of a 911 call made by Ava, the next-door neighbor, 40 seconds after gunshots. On the call Ava says, 'Marcus just shot at my house-he's leaving in a blue Civic.' Ava has since moved to Canada; she refuses to return and is beyond the court's subpoena power. Second, a lab report identifying gunshot residue on Marcus's jacket. The analyst who performed the test is on maternity leave and will not testify. Her supervisor, who did not test the jacket, reviewed the file, agrees with the conclusion, and will testify that the report is accurate and that lab procedures were followed. Marcus objects to both items on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. The judge asks for a ruling before the evidence is presented.

1. Should the 911 call be admitted over Marcus's hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections? Explain.

Read the worked answer

The 911 call is likely admissible. Hearsay: Ava's statements are out-of-court assertions offered for their truth, but the excited-utterance exception applies. The gunshots were a startling event, Ava spoke 40 seconds later while still under stress, and her words relate to the event. Confrontation Clause: the key question is whether the call was testimonial. Under Davis v. Washington, statements to a 911 operator are nontestimonial if the primary purpose is to enable police to meet an ongoing emergency. Ava reported a shooter who was leaving in a blue Civic, which helped police locate a fleeing suspect; she was not acting as a witness in a formal investigation. The fact that Ava is now unavailable and beyond subpoena does not bar nontestimonial statements. If the court finds the primary purpose was to establish a past crime, the call would be testimonial and excluded absent forfeiture, but the ongoing-emergency facts make admission more likely. Objection overruled.

2. Should the lab report be admitted through the supervisor? Explain.

Read the worked answer

The lab report should be excluded if offered through the supervisor. A lab report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial under Melendez-Diaz. The analyst who performed the test is unavailable, and Marcus has had no opportunity to cross-examine her. The supervisor did not test the jacket; he only reviewed the file and agrees with the conclusion. Under Bullcoming, a surrogate witness cannot introduce a testimonial lab report by testifying to its contents, even if the surrogate is a qualified expert. The supervisor may testify to an independent opinion only if he actually conducted his own testing or analysis and does not merely parrot the absent analyst's report. Here, his review of the file is not an independent test. Therefore, the report itself is inadmissible unless the analyst testifies or Marcus stipulates. The supervisor could possibly testify about general lab procedures, but that would not prove the residue result. Sustained.

3. If the judge admits both items and Marcus is convicted, what harmless-error analysis applies?

Read the worked answer

If the court admits both items and Marcus is convicted, the appellate court applies harmless-error review. Confrontation Clause violations are trial errors subject to Chapman v. California: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. For the lab report, the court would ask whether other evidence of guilt was overwhelming and whether the report was cumulative. For the 911 call, if it was nontestimonial and properly admitted, no error. If the call was testimonial and wrongly admitted, the state would need to show the remaining evidence-such as eyewitness testimony, the blue Civic, or the residue report-was so strong that the call did not affect the verdict. The court may also consider whether the error was structural, but confrontation errors are generally not structural. The conviction could be affirmed or reversed depending on the record.