Excited Utterances, "Testimonial" Statements, and the Confrontation Clause (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (12 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 14, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL33195 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Brian T. Yeh, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument this term in appealsfrom two state supreme court cases, Hammon v. Indiana and Davis v. Washington,concerning the admissibility of "excited utterance" statements made by non-testifyingwitnesses at criminal trials. In the landmark Crawford v. Washington case in 2004,the Court held that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause forbids hearsay"testimonial" evidence from being introduced against the accused unless the witnessis unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexaminethe witness. However, the Crawford Court declined to provide acomprehensive definition of "testimonial," leaving such task "for another day."This omission has caused state and federal courts to struggle over which out-ofcourtstatements are "testimonial" for purposes of triggering the Crawfordrequirements. The confusion has arisen most often in cases involving out-of-courtstatements made by non-testifying witnesses to investigating police officers at acrime scene or during 911 emergency calls. These "excited utterance" statementshave traditionally been admitted into evidence under an exception to the hearsayexclusionary rules followed by courts. However, since Crawford, the lower courtshave disagreed over whether spontaneous utterances are considered "testimonial"statements subject to the Sixth Amendment's cross-examination mandate. These twocases offer the Court an opportunity to resolve this uncertainty by more clearlyexplaining what constitutes "testimonial" statements. The outcome has the potentialto impact significantly the strategy and method of prosecuting criminal cases,particularly the use of out-of-court accusations against defendants in domesticviolence and gang-related crimes.
