White v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Evidence

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsaySixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausehearsayunavailabilityspontaneous declaration

Facts

A four-year-old child, S. G., made statements describing a sexual assault to her babysitter immediately after screaming, then repeated similar statements to her mother, a police officer about 45 minutes later, and medical personnel about four hours later. At trial, those witnesses testified to S. G.'s statements, and the trial court admitted them under Illinois hearsay exceptions for spontaneous declarations and statements made in the course of securing medical treatment. S. G. did not testify, although the State attempted twice to call her and she left the courtroom each time because of emotional difficulty. The trial court made no finding that she was unavailable, and the defense did not seek one.

Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause require, before admitting hearsay under the spontaneous declaration and medical examination exceptions, that the prosecution either produce the declarant at trial or that the trial court find the declarant unavailable? Does Ohio v. Roberts impose such a general unavailability requirement?

Rule

Unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding. When hearsay falls within a firmly rooted exception, such as spontaneous declarations or statements made for medical treatment, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied without a showing that the declarant is unavailable.

🔒

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 Phoenix, a robbery victim ran into a convenience store moments after being attacked, crying and shaking, and told clerk Maya Nolen that "Derrick Lane hit me and took my wallet." At the hospital 30 minutes later, the victim told Dr. Elise Romero the same account while seeking treatment for a broken nose. The victim later moved out of state and did not appear at trial, and the prosecutor made no showing that the victim was unavailable.

Assuming state evidence law properly classifies the store statement as an excited utterance and the hospital statement as made for medical diagnosis or treatment, does the Sixth Amendment require exclusion unless the prosecution first proves the victim is unavailable?

Explanation. The majority held that there is no general Confrontation Clause rule requiring the prosecution to produce the declarant or prove unavailability before admitting hearsay that falls within firmly rooted exceptions, specifically including spontaneous declarations/excited utterances and statements made for medical treatment. Unavailability analysis is not a necessary predicate here.