--- title: "Davis v. Washington" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/davis-v-washington --- # Davis v. Washington Davis clarified Crawford's testimonial framework by establishing the 'primary purpose' test for distinguishing testimonial from nontestimonial statements made during police interrogations. The decision held that statements are nontestimonial when made during an ongoing emergency and become testimonial when the primary purpose shifts to establishing facts for later criminal prosecution. ## Citation 547 U.S. 813 (2006) ## Year 2006 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts Davis involved two consolidated cases. In Davis v. Washington, Michelle McCottry called 911 during an assault by Adrian Davis and identified him as her attacker; by the time police arrived, Davis had fled. In Hammon v. Indiana, police responded to a domestic disturbance and found Amy Hammon on the porch; she told officers she was fine but then filled out a battery affidavit describing the assault by her husband Hershel. In both cases, the victims did not testify at trial, and the prosecution relied on their statements to police. ## Procedural History In Davis, the Washington courts admitted the 911 call. In Hammon, the Indiana Supreme Court admitted the battery affidavit. Both defendants argued these admissions violated the Confrontation Clause under Crawford. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and granted certiorari. ## Issue Whether statements made to law enforcement personnel during a 911 call and at a crime scene are 'testimonial' for purposes of the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington. ## Holding The Court held that statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Statements are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. McCottry's 911 statements were nontestimonial; Hammon's battery affidavit was testimonial. ## Reasoning Justice Scalia, again writing for the majority, focused on the objective circumstances surrounding each statement. The 911 call in Davis was made while the emergency was ongoing: McCottry was describing events as they happened, seeking help, and the situation was fluid and potentially dangerous. By contrast, in Hammon, the officers found no emergency in progress. Amy Hammon's statements were made after the situation had calmed, in response to structured questioning designed to investigate what had happened. The Court emphasized that the relevant inquiry is objective, asking what a reasonable person would understand the purpose of the interrogation to be. The Court also noted that an encounter that begins as nontestimonial can evolve into a testimonial one as circumstances change. ## Dissent Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in Davis but dissented in Hammon, arguing that the primary purpose test was too broad and that only statements involving a degree of formality and solemnity -- such as affidavits, depositions, and prior testimony -- should be considered testimonial. ## Impact Davis provided the essential companion framework to Crawford, giving courts a workable test for the most common confrontation issue: statements to law enforcement. The primary purpose test has been refined in subsequent cases such as Michigan v. Bryant and Ohio v. Clark, and has been applied to numerous contexts including forensic reports, child abuse investigations, and medical examinations. ## Key Quotes - 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 such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. - A 911 call... is ordinarily not designed primarily to establish or prove some past fact, but to describe current circumstances requiring police assistance. ## Related Cases - crawford-v-washington - ohio-v-roberts - bruton-v-united-states - michigan-v-bryant - idaho-v-wright ## Exam Relevance Davis is essential for any Confrontation Clause exam question involving police encounters. Professors often present fact patterns where a witness makes statements to police and ask students to apply the primary purpose test. A common exam technique is to present a fact pattern where the emergency status shifts mid-conversation, requiring analysis of when statements transition from nontestimonial to testimonial. ## Study Tips - Know the primary purpose test cold: ongoing emergency equals nontestimonial; investigating past events equals testimonial. - Understand the factual distinctions between the Davis 911 call and the Hammon battery affidavit. - Remember that Justice Thomas has a narrower view focusing on formality and solemnity. - Practice applying the test to ambiguous scenarios where the emergency status is unclear or shifting. ## Doctrine Established Primary Purpose Test for Testimonial Statements --- Source: [Davis v. Washington — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/davis-v-washington)