## Facts

- Sarah Crawford left her husband, Anthony Dale Crawford, reported prior abuse and threats, and sought court protection.
- Sarah submitted a sworn affidavit supporting an application for a preliminary protective order describing alleged physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and threats.
- Sarah was later found dead in a motel room from a gunshot wound to the chest.
- Physical evidence linked Crawford to the crime, including semen recovered from Sarah’s body and Crawford’s later possession of Sarah’s car.
- At Crawford’s criminal trial for Sarah’s killing and related offenses, the prosecution introduced a redacted version of Sarah’s protective-order affidavit over Crawford’s objection.
- The trial court admitted the affidavit under forfeiture by wrongdoing and a jury convicted Crawford of capital murder, abduction with intent to defile, rape, firearm offenses, and grand larceny.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed all convictions except grand larceny based on a Confrontation Clause violation, and the Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s sworn protective-order affidavit was testimonial hearsay whose admission without cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether forfeiture by wrongdoing permitted admission of the affidavit based on Crawford’s alleged responsibility for the declarant’s unavailability.
3. If admission violated the Confrontation Clause, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The court held the affidavit was testimonial and its admission without an opportunity for cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause.
- The court held forfeiture by wrongdoing did not apply because there was no evidence Crawford acted with the purpose of preventing the victim from testifying.
- The court held the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.
- The court affirmed Crawford’s convictions.

## Legal Principles

- A sworn affidavit prepared for use in a court proceeding, including an affidavit supporting a protective order, is testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.
- Testimonial hearsay from an unavailable declarant is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, subject to recognized exceptions.
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing applies only when the defendant’s misconduct was intended to render the witness unavailable for testimony; causing unavailability, without that purpose, is insufficient.
- A Confrontation Clause violation may be deemed harmless if the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict was not affected in light of the remaining evidence.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that admitting a victim’s protective-order affidavit at trial violated the Confrontation Clause and could not be justified by forfeiture by wrongdoing absent proof the defendant acted to prevent testimony, but it affirmed the convictions because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.


Crawford v. Commonwealth, 704 S.E.2d 107 (Va. 2011)