State v. Davis, 128 So. 3d 1162

Defendant Jeffery Davis was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the April 10, 2010 killing of Rodney Ross and sentenced to life without parole.
Crime scene and autopsy showed Ross was shot with two different guns (.45 and 9mm); .45 casings at both the April 5 and April 10 incidents.
Telly Westerman (Westerman) gave multiple statements implicating Davis and co-defendant Robbreion Green; Westerman pleaded to reduced charges in exchange for testimony.
Eunice Williams (mother of Westerman) gave a recorded statement to police identifying Westerman, Green, Davis and Ross at the scene but at trial professed memory loss and invoked the Fifth Amendment at points; the State played her prior recorded statement to the jury.
Evidence of an April 5, 2010 nonfatal shooting (same .45 firearm; Davis pled guilty to attempted murder counts for that incident) was admitted over Davis’ objection despite Davis offering to stipulate he had possessed the gun on April 5.
On appeal Davis argued (1) admission of Williams’ out-of-court statement violated his Confrontation Clause rights and (2) the April 5 shooting evidence was improper other-crimes evidence; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Eunice Williams’ recorded statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: Williams appeared at trial and was subject to cross-examination; memory loss does not bar admission of prior testimonial statements when declarant appears at trial	Davis: Williams’ refusal/claimed inability to recall deprived him of meaningful cross-examination; statement was testimonial hearsay under Crawford	Court: No violation — Williams appeared, was sworn, admitted the recorded voice was hers, and Owens/Crawford allow admission where declarant is present despite claimed memory loss
Whether evidence of the April 5, 2010 shooting (same .45 gun) was inadmissible other-crimes evidence despite Defendant’s offer to stipulate gun possession	State: Evidence was relevant to identity, opportunity, plan, intent and to rebut Davis’ self-defense and temporary-possession narrative; State not required to accept stipulation	Davis: The April 5 incident was improper other-crimes propensity evidence and the stipulation should have sufficed	Court: Admission proper — extrinsic act evidence was relevant for identity/opportunity/plan and probative value outweighed prejudice; State may present its case by its chosen evidence even when a stipulation is offered

United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (Confrontation Clause not violated when witness appears at trial but claims memory loss; opportunity to cross-examine is the constitutional guarantee)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay admissible only if declarant unavailable and prior opportunity for cross-examination; if declarant appears at trial, Clause places no constraints on use of prior statements)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (prosecution entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice; defendant cannot stipulate away probative force of prosecution’s evidence)
State v. Watson, 449 So.2d 1321 (La. 1984) (principle that prosecution may present evidence of its own choosing notwithstanding defendant’s stipulation)
State v. Ball, 756 So.2d 275 (La. 1999) (recognizing limits on defendant’s ability to avoid prosecution’s evidentiary presentation)