People v. Moscat

Criminal Court of the City of New York · Evidence

EvidenceHearsayConfrontation Clause911 callsExcited utteranceSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausetestimonial statements

Facts

In this domestic assault case, the prosecution sought to introduce a recording of the complainant's 911 call. Both sides anticipated that the complainant would likely refuse to appear and testify at trial. The defendant argued the call was hearsay and that admitting it would violate the Sixth Amendment. The People argued the call qualified as an excited utterance and was constitutionally admissible.

Issue

Whether a complainant's 911 call for help in a domestic assault case is a testimonial statement under Crawford v. Washington, such that its admission without the complainant's trial testimony would violate the Sixth Amendment. Also, if not testimonial, whether it may be admitted if it qualifies as an excited utterance.

Rule

Under Crawford, the Confrontation Clause bars the use of testimonial statements by a witness who does not appear at trial unless the witness is unavailable and was previously subject to cross-examination. A 911 call for help is not testimonial in nature where it is initiated by the victim to obtain protection from immediate danger rather than generated by the government to create evidence; therefore, its admissibility turns on ordinary hearsay rules, including whether it qualifies as an excited utterance.

🔒

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.

In Cleveland, Nina Patel called 911 while whispering from a bathroom that her former partner had kicked in the apartment door and was still in the hallway. She answered the operator's questions about her address and whether he had a weapon, but refused to testify at his assault trial.

Is the recording most likely barred by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the key constitutional question is whether the statement is testimonial. A 911 call made by the victim to summon aid from immediate danger is not testimonial because it is a cry for help rather than a formal act of bearing witness or a government-generated examination. Its admissibility therefore turns on ordinary hearsay doctrine, such as excited utterance. (Derived from People v. Moscat (n.d.).)