Davis v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Evidence

547 U.S. 813 (2006)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencetestimonial statements911 callsSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausetestimonial hearsaynontestimonial statements911 operator

Facts

During a 911 call, Michelle McCottry told the operator that her former boyfriend Adrian Davis was "here jumpin' on me again," that he was using his fists, and identified him by name while the incident was unfolding. The operator asked questions to determine the situation, whether weapons were involved, and who the assailant was; during the call McCottry said, "He's runnin' now," and the operator later gathered additional information after Davis had left. McCottry did not appear at trial, and the State's only witnesses were responding officers who observed recent injuries but could not identify the cause. Over Davis's Sixth Amendment objection, the trial court admitted the recording of the 911 exchange, and Davis was convicted.

Issue

Whether statements made to a 911 operator during the course of a domestic disturbance were "testimonial" under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. More specifically, the question was whether McCottry's early statements identifying Davis during the 911 call were subject to Crawford's bar on uncross-examined testimonial hearsay.

Rule

Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At 1:15 a.m. in Cleveland, Nina Patel called 911 screaming that her former roommate, Kyle Benton, was pounding on her apartment door and had just kicked in part of the frame. The operator asked where she was, whether Kyle had a weapon, and what he looked like so officers could respond safely. Nina did not testify at Kyle's later trial, and the prosecution offered the recording.

Under the Sixth Amendment, are Nina's statements on the call most likely testimonial?

Explanation. Statements are nontestimonial when made during police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Here, Nina was describing events as they were happening and seeking immediate help against a physical threat. The operator's questions about location, weapons, and identity helped resolve the emergency and protect responding officers, so the statements are nontestimonial.