Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Siler: Change of course for testimonial statements

The US Supreme Court's decision in 2004 in Crawford v. Washington probably was the most significant criminal case of the past decade.  The Court ruled there that, regardless of the hearsay rules, out-of-court statements could not be admitted if they were "testimonial."  Since Crawford was handed down, though, courts have struggled with the definition of exactly what constitutes a testimonial statement.  Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court ventured into that thicket again, in State v. Siler, and came to a substantially different conclusion from the first time they'd addressed the subject.

That first time was in last year's decision in State v. Stahl, which I discussed in detail back here.  The (very short) version is that the Court held that

In determining whether a statement is testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, courts should focus on the expectation of the declarant at the time of making the statement; the intent of a questioner is relevant only if it could affect a reasonable declarant's expectations.

As I'd pointed out, there were obvious problems with that approach, and those problems were highlighted by last week's decision, State v. Siler.  The state relied on Stahl in arguing that the statements should be admitted, because the declarant -- in this case, a three-year-old boy -- didn't have a reasonable expectation that his statement would be used at trial.  (Largely because, no doubt, he had no idea in the world what a "trial" was.)  The Court rejected that argument, though, holding that statements are testimonial if the "primary purpose" of the interrogation was "to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." 

The decision in Siler, especially given Stahl, raise some questions:

Is Stahl still good law?  Of course; Stahl isn't overruled, and the Court takes pains to distinguish it:  Stahl involved a statement to a nurse, while Siler involved a statement to police.  In fact, Justice Lanzinger, in her concurrence/dissent, seizes on that distinction as a way to reconcile the two cases:  if the statement is made to a police agent, then the "primary purpose" test is used, and if made to someone else, the "objective witness" test is employed.  Interestingly, Lanzinger dissented in Stahl; she would have found that the witness "objectively believed" that her statement to the nurse would be used at trial.

Whether this two-prong approach makes any sense is another matter.  A good argument could be made that Siler's language dictates that a contrary result should have been reached in Stahl:  That the primary purpose of the nurse's questioning was "to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution."  Although the majority in the latter case made much of the contention that the purpose of the nurse's questioning had been to provide medical treatment, that argument is undercut by the fact that (a) a police officer was in the room during the entire interrogation, (b) the form the witness signed specifically stated that the information would be used for the investigation and prosecution of the crime, and (c) no medical treatment was in fact provided.  Under those circumstances, it could easily have been concluded that the nurse was acting as an agent of the police and that the "primary purpose" should have been employed.

Is Siler limited to declarations by a child?  Although the 1st paragraph of the syllabus expressly refers to children, the 2nd paragraph states that "a declarant's age is not determinative of whether a testimonial statement has been made during a police interrogation."

Is Siler limited to statements made to police?  While, as noted, the opinion takes pains to emphasize that it was a police interrogation here, there's nothing in the opinion which expressly limits it to those situations.  In fact, the opinion cites numerous cases from other courts in which children's statements to police "agents" -- social workers, child abuse investigators, and even nurses -- were held to be testimonial.

At minimumit's going to be extremely difficult after Siler for the state to claim that a statement made to the police or their agents in a non-emergency situation isn't testimonial, and defense attorneys would be well-advised to emphasize Siler over Stahl in any case involving statements to someone other than the police agents.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it