Hammon v. Indiana
E821195
Hammon v. Indiana is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by distinguishing between testimonial and non-testimonial statements in the context of domestic violence and police interrogations.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Hammon v. Indiana canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799015 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hammon v. Indiana Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Hammon v. Indiana]
-
A.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Hess v. Indiana
Hess v. Indiana is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the limits of the First Amendment's "incitement" exception by holding that an antiwar protester's vulgar statement advocating future lawless action was protected speech.
-
C.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
-
D.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
E.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Hammon v. Indiana Target entity description: Hammon v. Indiana is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by distinguishing between testimonial and non-testimonial statements in the context of domestic violence and police interrogations.
-
A.
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana is a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
B.
Hess v. Indiana
Hess v. Indiana is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the limits of the First Amendment's "incitement" exception by holding that an antiwar protester's vulgar statement advocating future lawless action was protected speech.
-
C.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
-
D.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
-
E.
South Dakota v. Dole
South Dakota v. Dole is a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s power to condition federal highway funds on states adopting a minimum drinking age of 21, helping define the scope of the federal spending power.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (43)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedInContext |
domestic violence incidents
ⓘ
police questioning at the scene of an incident ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw | United States constitutional criminal procedure NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citation | 547 U.S. 813 ⓘ |
| citationStyle | Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| clarifiedConcept |
non-testimonial statements
ⓘ
primary purpose test for police interrogations ⓘ testimonial statements ⓘ |
| consolidatedWith | Davis v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalIssue | whether admission of certain hearsay statements violates the Confrontation Clause ⓘ |
| decidedWith | Davis v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2006-06-19 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 05-5705 ⓘ |
| factPattern |
police responded to a domestic disturbance at the Hammon residence
ⓘ
victim made statements to police about past domestic assault ⓘ |
| holding |
Admission of testimonial statements of a witness who does not appear at trial is barred under the Confrontation Clause unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
ⓘ
Statements to police that are not made during an ongoing emergency and are aimed at establishing or proving past events are testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. ⓘ |
| impact | provided guidance on admissibility of 911 and on-scene statements in criminal trials ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Confrontation Clause
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ criminal evidence law ⓘ domestic violence prosecutions ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionJoinedBy |
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 ⓘ |
| opinionOfTheCourtBy | Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatedIn | Indiana NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Hershel Hammon NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of a conviction in Indiana state court ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Crawford v. Washington
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Davis v. Washington NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | State of Indiana NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | judgment of the Indiana courts was reversed in part and remanded in light of Confrontation Clause analysis ⓘ |
| separateOpinionBy | Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Rehnquist Court–Roberts Court transition era NERFINISHED ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Hammon v. Indiana Description of subject: Hammon v. Indiana is a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by distinguishing between testimonial and non-testimonial statements in the context of domestic violence and police interrogations.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.