Gary Frye v. United States
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 56
| D.C. | 2014Background
- After a bench trial, Frye was convicted of simple assault against Parker.
- Parker made a single out-of-court statement to a police officer answering 'what happened' and did not testify at trial.
- Police arrived in response to a 911 call reporting an assault in progress; Parker and Frye were present and arguing; Parker appeared distressed.
- The trial court ruled Parker’s statements were not testimonial under Bryant and Davis, admitting them at trial.
- Frye appealed, arguing Confrontation Clause rights were violated by admitting Parker’s statements without in-court testimony.
- The majority affirmed, concluding Parker’s statements were non-testimonial; the dissent would reverse and require Parker to testify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Parker's statements testimonial under the Confrontation Clause? | Frye: statements were testimonial and should have been excluded or Parker called. | Parker's statements were non-testimonial under ongoing-emergency framework. | Parker's statements were non-testimonial; admissible. |
| Did the police's primary purpose in questioning Parker show an ongoing emergency? | Frye: continued emergency and safety concerns directed questioning. | Parker's statements were to assess the situation, not to prosecute past events. | Primary purpose did not render statements testimonial; emergency focus supported non-testimonial holding. |
| Does the post-Davis Bryant framework permit non-testimonial initial questioning by first responders in domestic disputes? | Parker’s statements were part of an ongoing emergency; admissible. | Bryant requires a restrictively narrow reading; the majority overreads the emergency. | Bryant framework supports non-testimonial finding here; statements not testimonial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (defines ongoing-emergency and primary purpose test for non-testimonial statements)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (contextual primary-purpose analysis in post-emergency inquiries)
- Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (companion framework regarding statements at domestic violence scenes)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires in-court testimony for testimonial statements)
- Davis v. United States, 547 U.S. 814 (U.S. 2006) (reiterates ongoing-emergency analyses; primary purpose inquiry)
- Lewis v. United States, 938 A.2d 771 (D.C. 2007) (consideration of declarant's perceived safety in testimonial determinations)
- Best v. United States, 66 A.3d 1013 (D.C. 2013) (burden on government to show admissibility of non-testimonial statements)