The 911 Call, the Bodycam, and the Missing Witness
Police charge Dante with second-degree assault after an incident at his apartment. The complainant, Priya, called 911 at 11:42 p.m. and told the dispatcher, 'Dante is still here with a knife; he just punched me and took my phone.' Officers arrived six minutes later; the knife was on the kitchen counter and Priya had a swollen cheek. On bodycam, Officer Ruiz asked, 'What happened?' Priya answered, 'He punched me twice and said he would kill me if I called anyone.' Priya has since moved out of state and refuses to testify. The prosecutor intends to offer (1) the 911 recording through the dispatcher and (2) the bodycam statement through Officer Ruiz. Defense counsel objects on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. The court has already found that Dante sent Priya a text saying, 'If you show up in court, you will regret it,' but Priya did not respond. The judge asks for a ruling before opening statements.
1. How should the court rule on the 911 recording?
Read the worked answer
Admit the recording. Priya's statements are hearsay because they are out-of-court assertions offered for their truth, but they fall within recognized exceptions. The statement that Dante 'just punched me' is an excited utterance: Priya was under the stress of a recent assault. The statement that Dante was 'still here with a knife' is also a present sense impression or excited utterance. The Confrontation Clause poses no bar because the call was nontestimonial. Under Crawford and Davis v. Washington, a 911 call is testimonial only when its primary purpose is to establish past facts for prosecution. Here the dispatcher was handling an ongoing emergency: Dante was still in the apartment with a knife, and Priya needed immediate help. The questions about the punch were intertwined with that emergency. The dispatcher can authenticate the recording and testify about the call. The court should overrule the hearsay and confrontation objections.
2. How should the court rule on the bodycam statement?
Read the worked answer
Exclude the bodycam statement unless forfeiture by wrongdoing is proven. The six-minute gap and the officers' arrival changed the primary purpose of the questioning. Priya was separated from Dante, the knife was on the counter, and Officer Ruiz asked an open-ended 'What happened?' question to investigate for prosecution. Under Davis, that is testimonial because a reasonable declarant would understand the statement could be used in a later criminal case. Priya is unavailable and did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine. The excited-utterance exception may satisfy hearsay law, but it does not satisfy the Confrontation Clause when the statement is testimonial. The statement that Dante said he would kill her is also testimonial. The court should sustain the objection unless the prosecution establishes forfeiture.
3. Does forfeiture by wrongdoing make the bodycam statement admissible?
Read the worked answer
Only if the prosecution proves by a preponderance that Dante intentionally made Priya unavailable to testify. Giles v. California requires conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying. The text 'If you show up in court, you will regret it' is probative of intent, but Priya did not respond, and the record does not yet show she moved or refused to testify because of the threat. Her absence could reflect fear, but it could also reflect inconvenience or reluctance. The court should hold an evidentiary hearing and require the prosecution to link Dante's conduct to her unavailability. If causation is shown, the forfeiture doctrine applies to testimonial statements and the bodycam statement becomes admissible. If not, it stays out. The 911 call is admissible regardless because it is nontestimonial.