State v. Mason
126 P.3d 34, 127 Wash. App. 554 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements made by an unavailable witness while in peril for the primary purpose of seeking protection are not "testimonial" and therefore do not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as interpreted by Crawford v. Washington.
Facts:
- Kim Mason and Hartanto Santoso were friends and coworkers.
- On January 23, 2001, Mason lured Santoso to his home, strangled him into unconsciousness, bound him with duct tape, threatened him with a gun, and forced him to write a check.
- Mason threatened to inject Santoso with drain cleaner, but Santoso convinced Mason to release him by promising not to contact the police.
- The next day, Santoso reported the assault to the Redmond police.
- After Mason was arrested and released pending trial on January 31, 2001, a terrified Santoso contacted a victim's advocate, expressed his profound fear that Mason would kill him, and obtained a no-contact order.
- On February 19, 2001, Santoso disappeared after neighbors heard glass breaking and noises from his apartment; police later found his blood-filled car at an airport.
- Santoso's body was never found, and he has not been seen or heard from since.
- Mason's girlfriend later confessed to police that Mason admitted to killing Santoso, stating, "Santoso won’t be a problem, anymore," and that she helped him dispose of the evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Kim Mason was charged with first degree aggravated murder in the trial court.
- During a 10-week jury trial, the court admitted out-of-court statements made by the deceased victim, Hartanto Santoso, to police and a victim's advocate.
- The jury convicted Mason of first degree aggravated murder.
- The trial court sentenced Mason to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
- Mason (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Washington Court of Appeals, arguing that admitting Santoso's statements violated his constitutional right to confront his accuser.
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 an unavailable witness's out-of-court statements to police officers and a victim's advocate, made primarily for the purpose of seeking protection, violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation?
Opinions:
Majority - Agid, J.
No, the admission of these statements does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Out-of-court statements are not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause when their primary purpose is to seek protection from peril, rather than to establish or prove facts for a later prosecution. The court's analysis under Crawford v. Washington focuses on the declarant's purpose. Here, Santoso's statements to police and his victim's advocate were frantic pleas for help and expressions of fear, made with the intent to secure his own safety. He was not acting as a witness providing a solemn declaration for trial. Therefore, because the statements were non-testimonial, they were not subject to Crawford's requirement of prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision provides crucial guidance for applying the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Crawford v. Washington to situations outside of formal police interrogations. By focusing on the declarant's primary purpose, the court creates a distinction between statements made to secure immediate protection and those made to provide evidence for prosecution. This 'purpose test' helps define the boundaries of what constitutes 'testimonial' hearsay, allowing prosecutors to admit victim statements made during ongoing emergencies or cries for help, particularly in domestic violence and homicide cases where the victim is unavailable due to the defendant's actions. It establishes that the Confrontation Clause is aimed at the 'principal evil' of formal, ex-parte examinations, not every statement made to a government official.
