## Facts

- Randall D. White was tried in Illinois for crimes arising from the sexual assault of a four-year-old girl, S.G.
- The prosecution attempted twice to have S.G. testify at trial, but she became emotionally distressed and left the stand without giving substantive testimony.
- Over hearsay objections, the trial court admitted testimony from five witnesses recounting S.G.’s out-of-court statements describing the assault.
- The witnesses included S.G.’s babysitter, her mother, a police officer, an emergency room nurse, and a physician, each of whom heard similar accounts within a short time after the incident and during medical examination.
- The statements were admitted under Illinois exceptions for spontaneous declarations (excited utterances) and statements made for purposes of medical examination or treatment.
- The trial court made no express finding that S.G. was unavailable to testify, and the defense’s mistrial motion based on S.G.’s failure to testify was denied.
- The jury convicted White of aggravated criminal sexual assault, residential burglary, and unlawful restraint.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires the prosecution to produce the declarant at trial or prove the declarant’s unavailability before admitting hearsay under the excited utterance and medical treatment exceptions.
2. Whether admission of a child’s out-of-court statements through other witnesses, without a formal unavailability finding, violates the Confrontation Clause when the statements fall within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the conviction in a unanimous judgment.
- The Court held the Confrontation Clause does not require a showing of unavailability before admitting statements under the excited utterance and medical treatment exceptions.
- The Court reasoned that any broad reading of prior language suggesting a general unavailability requirement was limited by precedent rejecting an across-the-board rule.
- Because the challenged statements fit within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions, the Clause was satisfied without an additional unavailability showing or a separate reliability inquiry.
- Justice Thomas concurred in part and in the judgment, favoring a narrower historical view of what counts as “testimonial,” but agreeing the statements were admissible.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause does not impose a general constitutional requirement that the declarant be produced or shown unavailable before hearsay is admitted.
- When an out-of-court statement is admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, its categorical guarantees of trustworthiness ordinarily satisfy the Confrontation Clause.
- Excited utterances are treated as reliable because they are made under the stress of a startling event, reducing the likelihood of fabrication.
- Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment are treated as reliable because the declarant has a strong incentive to be truthful to obtain appropriate care.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld admission of a child’s out-of-court statements describing sexual assault through multiple witnesses because the statements fell within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions, and the Sixth Amendment did not require the prosecution to prove the child’s unavailability before using that hearsay.


White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992)