Idaho v. Wright
497 U.S. 805 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Confrontation Clause, the admission of a hearsay statement from an unavailable declarant, which does not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, requires a showing of "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" derived solely from the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, not from other corroborating evidence presented at trial.
Facts:
- Laura Lee Wright and her boyfriend, Robert L. Giles, were accused of lewd conduct with Wright's two daughters, aged 5 ½ and 2 ½.
- The older daughter disclosed to Cynthia Goodman, her father's companion, that Giles had sexual intercourse with her while Wright held her down and covered her mouth.
- The older daughter also stated she saw Wright and Giles do the same thing to her younger sister.
- Following Goodman's report to the police, a medical examination of the older daughter revealed evidence of sexual abuse.
- Dr. John Jambura, a pediatrician, examined the younger daughter and found physical conditions strongly suggestive of sexual abuse.
- During the examination, in response to Dr. Jambura's questions, the younger daughter stated that 'daddy' (Giles) touched her with his 'pee-pee.'
- The younger daughter then volunteered the statement that Giles 'does it a lot more with my sister than with me.'
- Dr. Jambura used some leading questions during the interview, which was not videotaped, and his notes on the conversation were not detailed.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Lee Wright was convicted in an Idaho state trial court on two counts of lewd conduct with a minor.
- During the trial, the court determined Wright's younger daughter was incapable of communicating with the jury and thus unavailable to testify.
- Over Wright's objection, the trial court admitted testimony from Dr. John Jambura recounting statements the younger daughter made to him, ruling they were admissible under Idaho's residual hearsay exception and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- Wright appealed her conviction related to the younger daughter to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
- The Supreme Court of Idaho, the state's highest court, reversed the conviction, holding that the admission of the daughter's statements violated Wright's Confrontation Clause rights because they lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
- The State of Idaho petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a child's hearsay statements to an examining pediatrician, which do not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights when the trial court determines the statements' reliability based in part on external corroborating evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the admission of the child's hearsay statements violates the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. For a hearsay statement from an unavailable declarant to be admissible, it must bear 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.' These guarantees must be drawn from the totality of circumstances that surround the making of the statement and render the declarant particularly worthy of belief, not from other corroborating evidence at trial. Using corroborating evidence, such as physical findings of abuse or the testimony of another witness, to prove a statement's trustworthiness constitutes impermissible 'bootstrapping,' as it does not speak to the inherent reliability of the statement itself. In this case, the circumstances of the interview, including the use of leading questions and the lack of procedural safeguards, failed to provide the required guarantees of trustworthiness, and the trial court erred by relying on external corroborating evidence.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No, the admission of the statements should not be found to violate the Confrontation Clause, and courts should be permitted to consider corroborating evidence. The majority's rule forbidding the consideration of corroborating evidence to assess a statement's reliability is a new and unworkable creation that contradicts common sense and legal precedent. One of the best ways to determine if a statement is trustworthy is to see if it is corroborated by other objective evidence. The presence of physical evidence and corroborating testimony makes the child's statements more, not less, reliable. The case should be remanded for the state court to determine trustworthiness by considering all relevant factors, including the substantial corroborating evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of the Confrontation Clause analysis for hearsay not falling within a 'firmly rooted' exception. By creating a bright-line rule that corroborating evidence cannot be used to establish the 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,' the Court forced lower courts to focus exclusively on the context in which the statement was made. This holding increases the burden on prosecutors in cases, particularly those involving child abuse, where out-of-court statements are crucial but the circumstances of their making may be imperfect. The decision reinforces the idea that the Confrontation Clause is meant to test the inherent reliability of a statement at the time it was made, not to simply confirm its ultimate truth through other trial evidence.
Unlock the full brief for Idaho v. Wright