Davis v. Washington
E821194
Davis v. Washington is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to law enforcement are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to the rule announced in Crawford v. Washington.
Statements (44)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedTo |
statements made during a 911 emergency call
ⓘ
statements made to police officers responding to a domestic disturbance ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ evidence law ⓘ |
| citation | 547 U.S. 813 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| consolidatedWith | Hammon v. Indiana NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
Confrontation Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2006-06-19 ⓘ |
| decisionType | precedential opinion ⓘ |
| holding |
statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency
ⓘ
statements are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified scope of testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause after Crawford
ⓘ
influenced later Confrontation Clause decisions such as Michigan v. Bryant ⓘ provided guidance on admissibility of 911 calls in criminal trials ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| keyIssue |
application of Crawford v. Washington to 911 calls and on‑scene statements
ⓘ
whether certain statements to law enforcement are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalTest | primary purpose test for distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Adrian Martell Davis NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Hammon v. Indiana NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedPrecedent | Crawford v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | State of Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result |
conviction in Davis’s case affirmed
ⓘ
conviction in Hammon’s case reversed and remanded ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | domestic violence prosecution ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2005 ⓘ |
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.