## Facts

- Leon Davis robbed an insurance agency.
- During the robbery, Davis bound employee Yvonne Bustamante and her coworker with duct tape, poured gasoline on them, and set the building on fire.
- Bustamante and her coworker escaped but suffered severe burns; both later died from their injuries.
- Police officer Joe Elrod responded to the scene and encountered Bustamante while she awaited medical evacuation.
- Elrod observed Bustamante’s condition and believed she was not likely to survive, so he began questioning her to obtain a statement.
- Bustamante described the robbery and arson, stating that the attacker poured gasoline on them and lit them on fire when they did not give him what he wanted.
- When Elrod asked if she knew who committed the attack, Bustamante identified “Leon Davis,” explaining he was a client of the agency.
- Other witnesses overheard Bustamante describing events and identifying Davis; medical testimony described Bustamante’s grave condition, and testimony indicated she stated she was going to die.
- Before trial, Davis moved to exclude Bustamante’s out-of-court statements.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court admitted the statements as dying declarations, and the State presented them at trial through Elrod and other witnesses.
- Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and he sought review in the Supreme Court of Florida.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err in admitting Bustamante’s out-of-court statements identifying Davis and describing the attack as a dying declaration under Florida evidence law?
2. Did admission of Bustamante’s statements violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, even if the statements were testimonial and Davis had no opportunity to cross-examine her?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Davis’s convictions and death sentence(s).
- The court held the trial court properly admitted Bustamante’s statements as dying declarations because the evidence supported that Bustamante believed death was imminent and her statements concerned the cause and circumstances of what she believed to be her impending death.
- The court rejected Davis’s Confrontation Clause challenge, concluding that dying declarations remain admissible as a recognized historical exception to confrontation, even after Crawford and even if the statements are testimonial.

## Legal Principles

- A hearsay statement may qualify as a dying declaration when the declarant is unavailable, the statement concerns the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believes to be impending death, and the declarant subjectively believed death was imminent.
- The declarant’s belief in imminent death may be shown through surrounding circumstances, including the severity of injuries, the declarant’s words or conduct, and contemporaneous observations by officers, medical personnel, or other witnesses.
- A properly established dying declaration is admissible notwithstanding the Confrontation Clause; the dying-declaration exception is treated as a longstanding, historically recognized category that survives Crawford’s general bar on testimonial hearsay absent prior cross-examination.

## Conclusion

In Davis v. State, the Supreme Court of Florida upheld the admission of a severely burned victim’s on-scene identification of her attacker as a dying declaration and held that the Confrontation Clause did not bar the evidence, affirming Davis’s murder convictions and death sentence(s) on direct appeal.


Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 142 (2016)