White v. Illinois
502 U.S. 346 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not require the prosecution to either produce the declarant at trial or establish the declarant's unavailability before admitting out-of-court statements that fall within firmly rooted exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as spontaneous declarations and statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
Facts:
- In the early morning, Tony DeVore, the babysitter for four-year-old S.G., was awakened by her scream.
- DeVore went to S.G.'s bedroom and saw petitioner White leaving the room and then the house.
- Immediately after, S.G. told DeVore that White had choked her, threatened her, and touched her 'in the wrong places,' identifying her vaginal area.
- About 30 minutes later, S.G.'s mother, Tammy Grigsby, returned, and S.G. repeated the account, adding that White had 'put his mouth on her front part.'
- A police officer, Terry Lewis, arrived roughly 45 minutes after the initial scream and S.G. again recounted the events to him.
- Approximately four hours after the incident, S.G. was taken to a hospital where she described the assault in similar terms to an emergency room nurse, Cheryl Reents, and a doctor, Michael Meinzen.
Procedural Posture:
- White was charged in an Illinois trial court with aggravated criminal sexual assault, residential burglary, and unlawful restraint.
- At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce S.G.'s out-of-court statements through the testimony of her babysitter, mother, a police officer, a nurse, and a doctor.
- The State twice attempted to call S.G. as a witness, but she experienced emotional distress and could not testify; the court was not asked to and did not make a finding that she was unavailable.
- The trial court admitted the statements over White's hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections, ruling they were admissible under the state's spontaneous declaration and medical examination hearsay exceptions.
- A jury convicted White on all counts.
- White appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the Confrontation Clause does not require a showing of unavailability for statements admitted under these exceptions.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the Confrontation Clause question.
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 Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment require the prosecution to either produce a declarant at trial or have the court find the declarant unavailable before admitting their out-of-court statements under the spontaneous declaration and statements for medical examination exceptions to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Confrontation Clause does not impose an unavailability requirement for the admission of out-of-court statements that qualify under firmly rooted hearsay exceptions. The Court distinguished its prior ruling in Ohio v. Roberts, stating that its unavailability analysis applies only when the challenged statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding. Unlike prior testimony, the evidentiary value of spontaneous declarations and statements for medical treatment stems from the specific context in which they are made—contexts that provide substantial guarantees of trustworthiness that cannot be replicated by in-court testimony. Because these exceptions are 'firmly rooted,' they are deemed so trustworthy that adversarial testing would add little to their reliability, thereby satisfying the core concerns of the Confrontation Clause without requiring the declarant's production or a finding of unavailability.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. Justice Thomas agreed with the Court's judgment but wrote separately to argue that the Court's Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has become inconsistent with the text and history of the Clause. He proposed that the Clause's protection of the right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him' was historically aimed at preventing 'trial by affidavit'—the use of formalized testimonial materials like depositions, affidavits, and prior testimony made in contemplation of legal proceedings. In his view, the Clause does not apply to non-testimonial hearsay statements like those at issue in this case, and the Court's focus on 'firmly rooted' exceptions and 'indicia of reliability' unnecessarily complicates the analysis and improperly constitutionalizes the rules of evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limited the scope of the unavailability requirement previously established in Ohio v. Roberts, clarifying that it is not a universal prerequisite for admitting all hearsay evidence against a criminal defendant. By holding that reliability inherent in 'firmly rooted' hearsay exceptions satisfies the Confrontation Clause, the Court made it easier for prosecutors to introduce such statements, particularly in child sexual assault cases where the victim may be unable to testify. This ruling shifted the focus from the witness's availability to the inherent trustworthiness of the statement itself, a doctrinal move that would later be overturned by Crawford v. Washington for testimonial statements.
Unlock the full brief for White v. Illinois