Petit v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12118
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petit was convicted of felony murder, three counts of attempted felony murder, and armed robbery; sentences run concurrently.
- Joseph testified at a bond hearing about the robbery; his testimony was read at trial after he refused to testify.
- Petit challenged the bond-hearing testimony as violating Crawford v. Washington Confrontation Clause.
- Four 911 calls were admitted at trial; Petit objected that they were testimonial under Crawford.
- The court held Joseph unavailable and that Petit had a meaningful cross-examination at the bond hearing; 911 calls were analyzed for testimonial vs. nontestimonial under Davis and Bryant.
- Court affirmed convictions; held the four 911 calls were largely nontestimonial and any error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Joseph’s bond-hearing statements violated Crawford | Petit argues lack of unavailability and cross-examination. | State proved unavailability and allowed cross-examination at bond hearing. | Crawford satisfied; Joseph unavailable and cross-examination occurred. |
| Whether the bond-hearing cross-examination was meaningful under Crawford | Cross-examination at bond hearing was not meaningful. | Cross-examination occurred; not de minimis. | Yes, cross-examination was meaningful; no Crawford violation. |
| Whether the four 911 calls were testimonial or nontestimonial | Calls are testimonial under Crawford/Davis framework. | Most calls were nontestimonial because aimed at emergency assistance. | Calls 1-3 nontestimonial; 4th call nontestimonial; any error harmless. |
| Whether admission of the four calls violated the Confrontation Clause | Crawford prohibits non-testimonial hearsay without unavailability and cross-examination. | Under Bryant/Davis, ongoing emergency analysis supports admissibility. | No violation; proper analysis under Davis/Bryant; harmless error finding as needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial versus nontestimonial; unavailability and cross-examination required for admissibility)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (defines ongoing emergency standard for nontestimonial statements)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (opportunity for cross-examination must be effective, not necessarily identical in motive)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (2011) (context-dependent analysis of ongoing emergency and primary purpose)
- State v. Johnson, 982 So.2d 672 (Fla.2008) (broader Florida standard for unavailability: good-faith effort to procure witness)
- Thompson v. State, 995 So.2d 532 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (admission of adversarial preliminary hearing testimony under Crawford)
- Nazworth v. State, 352 So.2d 916 (Fla.1st DCA 1977) (bond hearing testimony and cross-examination context pre-Crawford)