Three Statements, One Trial: 911 Call, Dying Words, and a Confession
At 2:05 a.m., a 911 dispatcher takes a call from an unidentified woman: 'Someone just shot a man in a gray hoodie outside 41 Folsom - he ran toward the park.' Officer Park arrives four minutes later and finds Lena bleeding from the chest on the sidewalk. Gasping, she says, 'Marcus shot me... over money. He's got my keys.' Lena dies at 3:10 a.m. That night, Marcus's friend Ty tells Detective Ruiz, 'Marcus had the gun and he went to Folsom to rob Lena.' Ty is charged separately and refuses to testify, invoking the Fifth Amendment. At Marcus's trial, the prosecution offers (1) the 911 recording through the dispatcher, (2) Park's account of Lena's statement, and (3) Ruiz's account of Ty's statement.
1. Is the 911 recording admissible over hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections?
Read the worked answer
Hearsay: the recording is offered to prove that a man in a gray hoodie shot someone and ran toward the park. At least two exceptions fit. The caller was narrating events essentially as she perceived them - present sense impression, Rule 803(1) - and a shooting is a startling event, with the call made while she was still under its stress - excited utterance, Rule 803(2). Because these are 803 exceptions, the declarant's unavailability and her anonymity are irrelevant.
Confrontation: since the caller is unavailable and was never cross-examined, the question is whether her statements were testimonial. Under Davis v. Washington, a 911 call describing an ongoing emergency is non-testimonial, because its primary purpose is to enable police to respond rather than to create evidence for trial. A gunman at large at 2:05 a.m. is precisely an ongoing emergency. The call is admissible.
2. Is Officer Park's account of Lena's statement admissible?
Read the worked answer
Evidence law: the statement fits the excited utterance exception - Lena was gasping and bleeding four minutes after being shot. It also fits the dying declaration exception, Rule 804(b)(2), which applies in homicide prosecutions, provided the court finds she believed her death was imminent; the statement concerns the cause and circumstances of her death, as the rule requires.
Confrontation: the harder question is whether the statement was testimonial. Under Michigan v. Bryant, the primary-purpose test asks whether the officers' interrogation was designed to meet an ongoing emergency rather than to establish past events for trial. Park questioned Lena while the armed assailant was still at large and Lena was still in danger - her reference to 'he's got my keys' signals a continuing threat. That is an ongoing emergency, so the statement is non-testimonial and Crawford does not bar it. Even if a court found it testimonial, a dying declaration is the strongest candidate for a founding-era exception recognized independently of the right to confrontation - but the safer ground is non-testimoniality.
3. Is Detective Ruiz's account of Ty's statement admissible? Analyze the co-conspirator and statement-against-interest theories, and Ty's Fifth Amendment invocation.
Read the worked answer
This is the trap. Ty's invocation invites a co-conspirator answer, but § 801(d)(2)(E) fails on its own terms: the statement must be made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of it. A confession to a detective the night of the shooting, after the crime is complete and Ty is in custody, furthers nothing; it is a narrative to police.
That leaves § 804(b)(3). Ty is unavailable by invocation, and a statement exposing him to criminal liability can qualify - but under Williamson v. United States the court must parse the statement sentence by sentence. The portion admitting his own role may be genuinely against his interest; the portion describing Marcus's conduct is blame-shifting and self-serving and cannot come in. A statement that 'Marcus had the gun and went to Folsom to rob Lena' is exactly the accusatory portion Williamson excludes, unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness under § 804(b)(3)(B).
Bruton is inapplicable: there is no joint trial and Ty does not testify. Absent an independent exception, the detective's account should be excluded; if a portion qualifies, a limiting instruction is required.