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.
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 ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.