Hammon v. Indiana
Issues
Can a accusation made to an officer attempting to secure and investigate a scene of an alleged crime scene be entered into evidence without giving the defendant an opportunity to cross examine the accuser, or is the accusation a testimonial statement and thus open to cross-examination?
In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, the Supreme Court held that a wife’s out of court statement against her husband could only be admitted as testimonial evidence subject to cross-examination. The instant case presents a similar question, with the added complication of whether statements made at a crime scene during the investigative stage should be admitted as testimonial or non-testimonial statements. Hershel Hammon’s wife made a statement to police officers responding to a domestic disturbance call—there is no question that such a statement is admissible, but the real issue is whether once admitted the statement is a testimonial statement subject to the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. If it is not a testimonial statement within the meaning of Crawford, then the defendant does not have a right under the Sixth Amendment to cross-examine his wife. Crawford, 541 U.S. 36.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether an oral accusation made to an investigating officer at the scene of an alleged crime is a testimonial statement within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
On the evening of February 26, 2003, Officers Jason Mooney and Rod Richard of the Peru Police Department responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of Amy and Hershel Hammon. Hammon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 444, 446 (Ind. 2005).
Additional Resources
- Law about... Evidence