## Facts

- Calvin Heggar previously lived with Shadonna Hunter, his girlfriend, and moved out of her home on November 3, 2003.
- Soon after Heggar moved out, Hunter began dating Lydell Dabney.
- On November 8, 2003, Dabney was at his home with his roommate, Kenyotta Duncan.
- At 1:51 p.m., Dabney called Hunter while sitting on his front porch.
- During that call, Dabney told Hunter that Heggar was “driving into the driveway” in a green Honda Accord.
- Duncan, who remained inside the house, looked out a window and saw a man arrive in a green Honda Accord and begin talking with Dabney.
- Duncan did not know Heggar and could not identify the man, but evidence showed Heggar drove a green Honda Accord.
- Cell-phone records showed the 1:51 p.m. call ended at 2:01 p.m.
- At 2:16 p.m., Hunter called Dabney and spoke with him briefly.
- During the 2:16 p.m. call, Dabney told Hunter he was talking to Heggar and that “there was no problem.”
- Shortly after the second call, Dabney was shot eight times and died.
- The State charged Heggar with second degree murder.
- Before trial, the State filed a motion in limine seeking to allow Hunter to testify about what Dabney said during the two calls; the trial court granted the motion over Heggar’s objection.
- The jury convicted Heggar of second degree murder, and the trial court imposed the mandatory life sentence without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- Heggar appealed, arguing Hunter’s testimony relayed inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause under *Crawford v. Washington*.

## Issues

1. Whether the victim’s statements to his girlfriend during two phone calls immediately before the shooting were admissible under Louisiana evidence law (including the then-existing state of mind exception, La. C.E. art. 803(3)).
2. Whether admitting those statements through the girlfriend’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause under *Crawford v. Washington* because the victim did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed Heggar’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held the trial court did not err in admitting Hunter’s testimony about Dabney’s phone statements under Louisiana evidence rules, including as statements reflecting Dabney’s then-existing condition and contemporaneous perceptions during the ongoing calls.
- The court held the statements were non-testimonial because they were casual remarks during private phone conversations, not statements made to law enforcement or for use in prosecution.
- Because the statements were non-testimonial, *Crawford* did not bar their admission, and traditional hearsay analysis controlled.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause analysis under *Crawford v. Washington* focuses on whether an out-of-court statement is “testimonial”; *Crawford* does not require exclusion of non-testimonial hearsay.
- Informal statements made during private conversations with friends or family, and not made in response to police questioning or with a primary purpose of creating evidence for trial, are generally non-testimonial.
- Traditional hearsay exceptions remain available for non-testimonial statements; admissibility turns on the applicable state evidence rules.
- Under La. C.E. art. 803(3), statements of a declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition may be admissible even though the declarant is unavailable.
- Corroborating circumstances—such as phone records confirming timing and independent testimony placing a green Honda Accord at the scene—may support the trial court’s determination that the statements were made contemporaneously and were properly admitted.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Heggar*, the Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed a second degree murder conviction, holding that the victim’s statements to his girlfriend during two phone calls minutes before his death—identifying Heggar’s arrival and describing that he was speaking with Heggar and that “there was no problem”—were admissible under Louisiana evidence rules and did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were non-testimonial under *Crawford*.


State v. Heggar, 908 So. 2d 1245 (2005)