Crawford v. Com., 704 S.E.2d 107

Crawford was convicted in Charlottesville Circuit Court of capital murder, abduction with intent to defile, rape, use of a firearm in murder and abduction, grand larceny, based largely on forensic evidence and his statements.
Sarah Crawford, Crawford’s wife, had previously obtained a preliminary protective order after reporting abusive conduct and threats by Crawford; fear of him persisted.
An affidavit by Sarah Crawford in support of the protective order described multiple past violent acts and threats by Crawford and was admitted at trial after a suppression dispute.
Evidence at trial showed Crawford shot Sarah in her car, transported her to a motel, and left her paralyzed and undressed; semen and sperm were found, linking Crawford to the assault.
The defense challenged the affidavit as testimonial in nature under Crawford v. Washington; the trial court admitted it under forfeiture by wrongdoing, which the Court of Appeals later reviewed.
The Virginia Supreme Court held the affidavit was testimonial and its admission was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the convictions on multiple counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the affidavit testimonial under the Confrontation Clause?	Crawford contends the affidavit is testimonial and improperly admitted.	Commonwealth argues forfeiture by wrongdoing permits admission despite testimonial nature.	Affidavit is testimonial; admission was harmless error.
Does forfeiture by wrongdoing apply in domestic-relations contexts without proof of killing to silence testimony?	Commonwealth seeks application of forfeiture doctrine.	Crawford argues it does not apply without explicit intent to silence testimony.	The doctrine does not apply under these circumstances; admission still harmless.
Was the Court of Appeals bound by the Commonwealth's concession that the affidavit was testimonial?	Crawford argues the concession controls review.	Commonwealth concession should bind appellate analysis.	Question disposed of; ruling unnecessary since affidavit is testimonial.
Is the 'right result for the wrong reason' doctrine applicable to this case?	Crawford argues any affirmed result must be for correct reasons.	Commonwealth contends Court’s reasoning suffices.	Not needed—affidavit conceded to be testimonial; harmless error analysis applied.
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain abduction with intent to defile and rape independent of the affidavit?	Sufficiency challenged without affidavit.	Evidence, including violence history and direct actions, supports convictions.	Yes; sufficient evidence beyond the affidavit.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation right limits testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. _ (U.S. 2009) (affidavits in forensic contexts are testimonial)
Van Arsdall v. California, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (harmless-error factors for Confrontation Clause violations)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard after constitutional error)
Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1963) (federal harmless-error formulation refinement)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing in domestic-violence contexts)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 95 (Va. 1995) (abduction with intent to defile evidence standards)
Cypress v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 305 (Va. 2010) (tools and standards for harmless-error review)
White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1992) (testimonial principles and a confrontation framework)