We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
EVIDENCE - FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING: ADMITTING EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF EQUITY AND AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.
- Authors
Kearney, Colin
- Abstract
In State v. Davis, the North Dakota Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing as an exception to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. In Davis, the court denied the defendant's appeal that his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated by the admission of testimonial hearsay which the district court had admitted based on the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. The defendant did not argue that forfeiture by wrongdoing was not a valid exception to the Confrontation Clause, but rather that the court's interpretation and application of the doctrine was invalid, and the court had failed to adequately support its findings. The North Dakota Supreme Court first held, as a matter of first impression, that the forfeiture doctrine as an exception to the Confrontation Clause was proper, and the court adopted a four-part test that was established in the Minnesota Supreme Court case State v. Cox. Second, the court held, as a matter of first impression, that the State does not bear a burden to show that the defendant's wrongful acts were intended to prevent the victim from testifying at a specific trial or proceeding. Instead, the element of intent refers to the defendant's state of mind only as it pertains to making a witness unavailable . As a result, the court held. based on the evidence presented, that the district court correctly applied the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing and properly admitted the victim' s testimonial statements. In determining this case, the court considered case law from the United States Supreme Court, multiple state supreme court opinions, and both the Federal and North Dakota rules of evidence as they pertain to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Additionally, the court made note of specific out of court statements which, based on prior opinions, would not be considered testimonial and thus would be considered beyond the reach of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. As a matter of first impression, State v. Davis establishes and defines the test for the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, it outlines for prosecutors the appropriate context and use of this doctrine, and it provides guidance on the role of evidence necessary to support this doctrine.
- Subjects
NORTH Dakota. Supreme Court; FORFEITURE; CONFRONTATION clause (Law); RIGHT to counsel; FAIR trial
- Publication
North Dakota Law Review, 2023, Vol 98, Issue 1, p141
- ISSN
0029-2745
- Publication type
Article