Michigan v. Bryant

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Evidence

562 U.S. 344 (2011)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidenceongoing emergencyConfrontation Clausetestimonial hearsayprimary purposepolice interrogationobjective inquiryinformality

Facts

Detroit police responding around 3:25 a.m. to a report of a shooting found Anthony Covington lying in a gas station parking lot with a gunshot wound to the abdomen, in great pain and speaking with difficulty. Officers asked what happened, who shot him, and where the shooting occurred; Covington said that "Rick" shot him through the back door of Bryant's house and that he had then driven himself to the gas station. The questioning lasted about 5 to 10 minutes until emergency medical services arrived, and Covington died within hours. At Bryant's trial, officers recounted Covington's statements, and Bryant was convicted of second-degree murder and firearm offenses.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause barred admission of Covington's statements to responding police officers. More specifically, were his statements testimonial, or were they nontestimonial because their primary purpose was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency?

Rule

To determine whether statements made during police questioning are testimonial, courts must objectively evaluate the circumstances of the encounter and the statements and actions of both the declarant and the interrogators. Statements are nontestimonial when made under circumstances objectively indicating that the interrogation's primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency; they are testimonial when circumstances objectively indicate there is no such ongoing emergency and the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. The existence of an ongoing emergency is among the most important factors, but it is not dispositive; formality, the type of weapon, the scope of potential danger to police and the public, and the victim's medical condition may also inform the inquiry.

🔒

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 1:20 a.m. in Cleveland, officers responding to a report of gunfire found Luis Moreno slumped beside his car in a supermarket parking lot, bleeding heavily and gasping for air. Before paramedics arrived, officers asked who shot him, where it happened, and which way the shooter went; Luis said Nate Pruitt shot him two blocks away and that he did not know where Nate had gone.

At Nate's murder trial, Luis has died and the officers testify to Luis's statements. Under the Confrontation Clause, are the statements most likely testimonial?

Explanation. The governing inquiry is objective and asks whether the primary purpose of the interrogation, viewed from the circumstances and the statements and actions of both sides, was to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency or instead to establish past facts for prosecution. Here, officers encountered a gravely wounded victim in a public place minutes after a shooting by an armed assailant whose motive and location were unknown. Questions about who shot him, where, and flight direction are the kind needed to assess danger to police and the public. That makes the statements nontestimonial. The Court did not hold that all dying-victim statements are automatically admissible.