ANDREW WILLS v. UNITED STATES.
147 A.3d 761
| D.C. | 2016Background
- After a bench trial, Wills was convicted of simple assault and attempted second-degree theft arising from a gas-station altercation with his wife.
- A on-scene 911 recording and the wife’s statements were admitted over hearsay objections, including her claim that Wills snatched her keys.
- Sergeant Parson testified about the on-scene questioning and the wife’s statements identifying Wills as the suspect and describing key-taking.
- The trial court relied on the wife’s statements to prove attempted theft; the assault conviction leaned on Silas’s testimony and the anonymous 911 call.
- Wills challenged the Confrontation Clause validity of the complained-of statements, raising plain-error review on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the on-scene statement that Wills snatched keys was testimonial | Wills: statement is testimonial under Crawford and Hammon | Government: statements were non-testimonial under ongoing-emergency framework | Testimonial; error under Confrontation Clause |
| Whether the error was plain under the plain-error standard | Hammon and Andrade support plain error | No plain error asserted | The error was plain |
| Whether the Confrontation Clause violation affected substantial rights for the theft conviction | Unconfronted key-claim statements formed core proof of attempted theft | Other evidence sufficed to prove theft | Prejudicial effect on theft conviction; reversal warranted |
| Whether the assault conviction can stand after reversal of the theft conviction | Assault proof independent of the challenged statement | Assault relies on same on-scene statements | Assault conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Confrontation Clause guarantees cross-examination of testimonial evidence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Testimonial statements require cross-examination unless exception applies)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Emergency-based statements are non-testimonial; past-event reporting is testimonial)
- Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (On-scene statements about past events can be testimonial when no ongoing emergency exists)
- Andrade v. United States, 106 A.3d 386 (D.C. 2015) (Ongoing-emergency inquiries can yield testimonial statements; context-dependent)
- Frye v. United States, 86 A.3d 568 (D.C. 2014) (Context-specific assessment of testimonial nature; distinguishable facts from Hammon)
- Bryant v. United States, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (Limits on automatic emergency framing; domestic violence context matters)
- Thomas v. United States, 914 A.2d 1 (D.C. 2006) (Plain-error analysis; adjudicate based on state of law at time of review)
- Otts v. United States, 952 A.2d 156 (D.C. 2008) (Plain-error assessment in Confrontation Clause context)
- Drayton v. United States, 877 A.2d 145 (D.C. 2005) (When testimonial error undermines fairness where testimony was central)
- United States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2004) (Confrontation Clause considerations in documentary and testimonial evidence)