Facts
- Dwayne Giles was charged in California state court with murdering his former girlfriend, Brenda Avie.
- In September 2002, Avie was shot multiple times outside Giles’s grandmother’s garage; no eyewitness saw the shooting.
- Giles claimed self-defense, testifying that Avie was violent and had threatened him on the day of the shooting.
- The prosecution offered Avie’s prior statements to a police officer made about three weeks earlier during a domestic-violence response, alleging Giles choked and punched her and threatened to kill her if he found her cheating.
- Avie’s statements were testimonial out-of-court statements taken by an officer investigating past events.
- The trial court admitted the statements under a state hearsay exception and ruled Giles forfeited confrontation by causing Avie’s unavailability; Giles was convicted.
- California appellate courts affirmed on a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing theory that did not require proof Giles acted to prevent Avie’s testimony.
Issues
- Whether the Sixth Amendment allows admission of a witness’s testimonial statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing when the defendant’s conduct caused the witness’s absence, without proof the defendant acted to prevent testimony.
- Whether founding-era confrontation exceptions limit forfeiture by wrongdoing to conduct designed to keep a witness from testifying.
Decision
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- The Court held forfeiture by wrongdoing permits admission of testimonial statements only if the prosecution proves the defendant acted with intent to make the witness unavailable to testify.
- The Court rejected California’s rule that an intentional criminal act causing unavailability, by itself, forfeits confrontation.
- The Court noted that evidence of threats or abuse aimed at dissuading a victim from seeking outside help may support an inference of intent to prevent testimony, but no categorical domestic-violence exception exists.
Legal Principles
- The Confrontation Clause generally bars testimonial hearsay unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination, subject to limited historical exceptions.
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing is a confrontation exception only when the defendant’s wrongdoing was intended to, and did, procure the witness’s unavailability as a witness.
- Mere causation of a witness’s absence, without an intent to prevent testimony, is insufficient to forfeit confrontation rights.
- The intent requirement is consistent with the common-law “means or procurement” doctrine and with modern formulations such as Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6).
Conclusion
The Court required a showing that the defendant acted to prevent the witness from testifying before admitting the witness’s testimonial statements under forfeiture by wrongdoing, and it sent the case back for proceedings applying that intent-based standard.