United States v. Estes

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021 · Evidence

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsay911 callsConfrontation Clausetestimonialnon-testimonialongoing emergency

Facts

While driving after finishing a house-cleaning job, Katherine Hutchins learned that her boyfriend Estes had stolen a firearm from the house, loaded it, showed it to her, and pointed it at her. Hutchins believed Estes was a felon, thought he might be using drugs, and saw needles in his pocket. When Estes briefly left the car to help another motorist, Hutchins called 911 and reported that he had a loaded gun, that she was scared and shaking, and that she feared being shot. During the call, the dispatcher asked about their locations, encouraged her to keep up a ruse when Estes returned, and remained on the line until officers arrived.

Issue

Whether Hutchins's statements during the 911 call were testimonial so that admitting the recording without her testimony violated the Confrontation Clause, and if not, whether the recording was nevertheless inadmissible because no hearsay exception applied. The case also raised whether a defendant has any independent face-to-face confrontation right as to non-testimonial hearsay.

Rule

Under the objective primary-purpose inquiry for 911 calls, statements are non-testimonial when made during police questioning under circumstances indicating that the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency, and testimonial when there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for later prosecution. Relevant factors include whether the declarant described current events in real time, whether a reasonable listener would perceive an ongoing emergency, whether the questions and answers were needed to resolve the emergency, and the level of formality and safety of the setting. If a statement is non-testimonial, the Confrontation Clause is not implicated, and admissibility depends only on the hearsay rules.

🔒

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 Portland, Oregon, Lena Morris called 911 from a grocery store parking lot after her former roommate, Derek Shaw, had waved a loaded handgun at her during an argument moments earlier. Derek was still circling the lot in his car, and Lena stayed on the line describing where he was moving as the dispatcher directed officers to the scene.

If prosecutors later offer the 911 recording without calling Lena, the strongest argument that the recording is admissible over a Confrontation Clause objection is that Lena's statements were:

Explanation. Statements in a 911 call are non-testimonial when, objectively viewed, the primary purpose of the exchange is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Here, Lena described unfolding events in real time while the armed suspect remained nearby, and the dispatcher was trying to locate and stop an active danger. Under the majority's reasoning, the Confrontation Clause does not apply to such non-testimonial statements. (Derived from United States v. Estes (n.d.).)