State v. Clark
1512002451
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- On Dec. 3, 2015, Molly Hoffman witnessed a shooting at the Brandywine Apartments; Jamai White was shot and later died. Molly later died (Aug. 16, 2016), rendering her unavailable for trial.
- Molly gave three relevant out‑of‑court statements: (1) a recorded, agitated account to a county patrol officer in the squad car en route to the station; (2) a later, more formal audio interview with a detective at police headquarters; and (3) a contemporaneous, unrecorded account to her sister Michelle immediately after the incident before they flagged down police.
- The State moved pretrial to admit Molly’s prior statements; defense lodged Confrontation Clause (Crawford) objections and contested hearsay exception applicability.
- The court analyzed admissibility under Crawford/Davis/Michigan v. Bryant (the “primary purpose” test) and Delaware hearsay rules (excited utterance, residual exception).
- Court concluded the detective interview at the station was testimonial and inadmissible under Crawford; the squad‑car statement to the patrol officer was also testimonial and inadmissible; the statement to Molly’s sister was nontestimonial and admissible as an excited utterance (D.R.E. 803(2)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of police interview at station (detective) | State: reliable, fits residual exception; should be admitted | Defense: testimonial under Crawford, violates Confrontation Clause | Held: testimonial; inadmissible under Crawford (cannot be admitted) |
| Admissibility of statement in patrol car to officer (recorded) | State: admitted as excited utterance/present sense impression; preserved contemporaneous account | Defense: testimonial because police questioning and recording aimed to preserve evidence for prosecution | Held: testimonial (primary purpose to memorialize past events); inadmissible under Crawford |
| Admissibility of statement to sister (pre‑police) | State: admissible as excited utterance under D.R.E. 803(2); sister will testify | Defense: may challenge reliability and relevance | Held: nontestimonial and admissible as excited utterance; State may present Michelle’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial from nontestimonial statements by "primary purpose"—ongoing emergency test)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (refines "primary purpose" inquiry; statements to resolve an ongoing emergency may be nontestimonial)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (prior standard rejected by Crawford; reliability‑based test)
- Dixon v. State, 996 A.2d 1271 (Del. 2010) (admission of 911 calls under excited utterance/Crawford analysis)
- Milligan v. State, 116 A.3d 1232 (Del. 2015) (Confrontation Clause considerations for documentary evidence)
- Gannon v. State, 704 A.2d 272 (Del. 1998) (elements for excited utterance under Delaware law)