Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FRANK BOOTH,
Petitioner,
v.
Respondent.
Advocate #P2
Issue #2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................ii
QUESTION PRESENTED.............................................1
OPINIONS BELOW.................................................1
INTRODUCTION...................................................2
ARGUMENT.......................................................5
CONCLUSION....................................................15
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006).......5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15
Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004).....................................5, 6
State v. Kirby
280 Conn. 361 (2006)...................................8, 9
State v. Lewis
235 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. 2007)..............................11
State v. Koslowski
166 Wash. 2d 409 (2009)..........................12, 14, 15
Collins v. State
873 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)..................13, 14
Constitutional Provisions
Other Authorities
ii
QUESTION PRESENTED
OPINIONS BELOW
1
INTRODUCTION
Issue 1:
the grounds that they were made for the purpose of establishing
him until emergency medical services (EMS) arrived and ask him
questions about what had happened, who had shot him, and where
2
Beaumont was not facing an ongoing emergency because any danger
had dissipated, and his statements were not a cry for help in the
(EMS), and waited with Beaumont until they arrived. (R. at 37-
officers asked him what had happened, who had shot him and where
3
outside his neighbor’s door at about 3:00 a.m., speaking with
someone through the door. Id. The door remained closed, but
Booth. Id. A gunshot was fired through the door and struck him
in the stomach. Id. Beaumont then left the scene, entered his
38). It was from the restaurant that he called for the police on
After EMS arrived, the officers left the scene and proceeded
around the house, drew their weapons, and called for back up.
Id. They did not approach the home until back up arrived. Id.
4
Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), the Court of Appeals determined
testimonial.
ARGUMENT
the accused. Id. at 50. The Court left open the question of
5
In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court held that statements
past events; the nature of the statements and questions; and the
6
U.S. at 827. In Davis, the victim was literally crying for help
companion case, Hammon, the victim said things were fine and the
that, since the assault had ended before the statements were
7
made after the victim had escaped testimonial, since “although
she made the call, the bulk of her conversation with Gomes
happened to her in the recent past, rather than one that was
crime was ongoing. Like Hammon, the danger had passed. Unlike
Davis, the victim was not still being attacked. At no time did
officers’ part that there was an ongoing crime and they would
had driven six blocks away from Booth’s home, and was protected
clearly ended by Beaumont’s distance from the crime scene and the
8
(holding that any emergency had ended because the crimes were no
help” such as those in Davis. Davis, 547 U.S. at 828. They were
more analogous to those in Hammon, since the attack had ended and
officers had called for EMS. Beaumont’s statements did not relay
the perpetrator and what transpired during the crime did not do
so.
9
The Acadia Supreme Court’s contention that a criminal act
and long after any danger had passed, so long as some of the
questions about what had occurred and what her husband had done
time from the danger she described,” the Court explained. Id. at
831-32. See also State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 147 (Tenn.
2007) (finding that where the victim had been shot minutes
10
In this case, Beaumont was describing past events, rather than
past-tense questions (“what had happened, who had shot him, and
what was asked and answered, objectively, was such that the
Court found that the primary purpose of the officer’s inquiry was
to find out “what happened.” Id. The Court reasoned that such
11
examination.” Id. See also State v. Koslowski, 166 Wash. 2d 409,
scene but the nature of the interrogation was for the purpose of
the stand and precisely what Beaumont did here. Similar to the
12
that they proceeded immediately thereafter to Booth’s residence
are testimonial.
Respondent may argue that some lower court cases have held
N.E.2d 149, 154-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), the court found that the
statements took place when the declarant still feared for his
the declarant, and could very possibly have come back and killed
him. Id. at 152, 154. The capture of the murderer was necessary
Beaumont had fled the scene and the shooter presumably had no
13
on preventing further harm to Beaumont as it did in Collins.
Moreover, other lower courts have found the fact that a suspect
events.
court found that “it was formal enough” that the victim’s
14
victim’s emotional state was agitated. Koslowski, 166 Wash. 2d
at 429.
the Acadia Supreme Court relied on the fact that the questions
crime scene, he was six blocks away—much farther than the “in the
CONCLUSION
reverse the decision of the Acadia Supreme Court and hold that
15
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________
Gina Giacopuzzi
16