Davis v. Washington case brief

1. Davis v. Washington (US 2006)
1. victim’s statements in response to 911 operator’s interrogation weren’t testimonial, and therefore weren’t subject to CC.
1. statements taken by police officers in the course of an investigation are nontestimonial when made under circs objectively indicating that the primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
2. here, victim speaking about events as they were actually happening, not past events.
3. note: a conversation that begins as an interrogation to determine need for emergency assistance (not subject to CC) may evolve into testimonial statements once that purpose has been achieved.
• trial courts should recognize this shift; redact portions of statement that have become testimonial.
2. domestic battery victim’s written statements in affidavit given to police were testimonial, and therefore subject to CC.
1. statements taken by police officers in the course of an investigation are testimonial when circs objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency and that the primary purpose of interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially related to later criminal prosecution.

CC applies only to testimonial hearsay.