Marty called 911 to report a fight between Harris and Colten. In the 911 call, Marty related to the dispatcher that a person he identified as Harris had jumped Colten from behind and was stabbing Colten. Marty stated that Colten was lying on the ground bleeding from the stab wounds. Marty remained on the telephone with dispatch and related that Harris was running from the scene. Harris was arrested 2 weeks later and charged with the attack on Colten. Marty died in a car accident 2 weeks before Harris’s trial. The prosecution wants to introduce portions of Marty’s statement at Harris’s trial. The defense attorney objects. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Davis v. Washington, how will the judge rule on this issue?

Question

a. Marty’s statements to the 911 dispatcher are inadmissible hearsay.
b. Marty’s statements to the 911 dispatcher are admissible if the judge finds sufficient indicia of reliability even though the statements were not subjected to cross-examination by Harris’s attorney.
c. Marty’s statements, made during an on-going emergency, are non-testimonial and, since Marty was not actually testifying against the accused, his statements to the 911 dispatched are admissible.
d. Marty’s statements, made during an on-going emergency automatically have sufficient indicia of reliability, however, since Marty was not subjected to cross-examination, his statement to the 911 dispatched are inadmissible.

Answer 1

c. Marty’s statements, made during an on-going emergency, are non-testimonial and, since Marty was not actually testifying against the accused, his statements to the 911 dispatched are admissible.