Savoie v. Louisiana State Penitentiary
6:10-cv-01735
W.D. La.Apr 2, 2013Background
- Petitioner Savoie was convicted of attempted aggravated rape after a bench trial in Louisiana; the victim testified about a spontaneous statement to officers at the scene/hospital admitted as excited utterance; the court admitted the statement over Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause concerns; Magistrate Judge Hill recommended habeas relief on two claims related to Confrontation; the district court held the statement non-testimonial and harmless error; the district court denied the petition on all grounds; the court entered the order denying habeas corpus on March 27, 2013.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s statement to Officer Bayard was testimonial. | Savoie; the statement was testimonial under Crawford and its admission violated Confrontation. | State; the statement was an excited utterance, non-testimonial, and admissible. | Non-testimonial; statement admissible; harmless error if any. |
| Whether the excited utterance exception applies given trauma/stress of the victim. | Excited utterance does not cure Confrontation violation. | Statement fit excited utterance under state law and still non-testimonial. | Statement legitimately admitted as excited utterance; not testimonial. |
| Whether, if error occurred, any Confrontation Clause error was harmless. | Confrontation error prejudiced petitioner. | Harmless given substantial physical evidence and DNA corroboration. | Harmless error; guilt supported by physical evidence and DNA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes testimonial/non-testimonial distinction for Confrontation Clause)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (limits testimonial status of statements to emergency contexts)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (continues Confrontation Clause analysis for excited utterances in emergencies)
- State v. Hawkins, 688 So.2d 473 (La. 1997) (harmless error analysis in Confrontation Clause context)
- State v. Yochim, 496 So.2d 596 (La.App.1st Cir. 1986) (excited utterance under state law; non-testimonial consideration)