Commonwealth v. Beatrice
460 Mass. 255
Mass.2011Background
- 911 call to Brockton police after victim was assaulted by her boyfriend; defendant Beatrice charged with two counts of assault and battery in District Court.
- Victim invoked her right against self-incrimination, and the defense moved to suppress the tape recording of the 911 call, arguing Confrontation Clause violation absent her live testimony.
- Judge denied in limine and admitted the tape; defendant convicted of one count of assault and battery; Appeals Court affirmed the admissibility as excited utterance and non-testimonial.
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted limited review focused on the 911 call and waited for Michigan v. Bryant decision; supplemental briefs filed after Bryant decision.
- Court analyzes whether the 911 statements were excited utterances and not testimonial, and whether ongoing emergency justified admission regardless of victim’s unavailable testimony.
- Court concludes the 911 call was an excited utterance and not testimonial, and that an ongoing emergency justification supported admission of the recording.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 911 call qualifies as an excited utterance | Beatrice argues statements were testimonial | Beatrice contends excited utterance rule applies | Yes; statements were excited utterances |
| Whether the statements were testimonial under Confrontation Clause | Beatrice claims testimonial nature requires exclusion | Beatrice asserts statements were testimonial | No; not testimonial under ongoing emergency framework |
| Whether an ongoing emergency existed at the time of the call | Beatrice argues no ongoing emergency | Beatrice asserts emergency existed | Yes; ongoing emergency found based on circumstances and timing |
| Primary purpose of the interrogation of the 911 call | Beatrice contends purpose was to develop case | Beatrice contends purpose was to meet emergency | Primary purpose to address ongoing emergency; not to develop case |
| Role of common-law hearsay exception in admissibility | Beatrice argues hearsay exclusion applies | Beatrice contends admissibility under excited utterance and non-testimonial theory | Admission proper under excited utterance and non-testimonial analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause—testimonial statements require opportunity for cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Police must assess ongoing emergency; nontestimonial if emergency ongoing)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (Ongoing emergency assessment; primary purpose governs admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Simon, 456 Mass. 280 (Mass. 2010) (Excited utterance and non-testimonial considerations in Massachusetts evidence law)
- Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, 452 Mass. 236 (Mass. 2008) (Excited utterance and confrontation clause considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. 620 (Mass. 2002) (Definition of excited utterance in Massachusetts)