Washington v. Pugh

Facts: Petitioner Timothy Pugh was convicted of domestic violence in the Superior Court for King County after a trial in which a 911 call made by Pugh’s wife shortly after he allegedly assaulted her was admitted into evidence. Pugh subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that the admission of the 911 call violated the right to confrontation guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I §22 of the Washington State Constitution. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Pugh’s conviction, holding that the evidence was non-testimonial and properly admitted as an excited utterance pursuant to Washington Rules of Evidence §803(a)(2). Pugh appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Was the 911 call evidence that was non-testimonial in nature?

If so, does Article I §22 confer a broader right to confrontation than the 6th Amendment?

Conclusion: Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court ruled that the contested evidence was non-testimonial in nature as the statements made by Pugh’s wife in the 911 call described events as they were occurring rather than recounted past events. The Court also concluded that Article I §22 did not preclude the 911 call’s introduction and that it was admissible under Washington Rules of Evidence §803(a)(2) as an excited utterance as the history of Article I §22 indicated that its framers intended to incorporate the common law res gestae exception making such statements admissible.

Docket No. 80850-3 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 56935-0)

Petitioner: Timothy Pugh

(Counsel: Maureen Marie Cyr)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: James Morrissey Whisman)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Audio: Washington Supreme Court

Decided: Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 8-1

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Gerry Alexander: Majority

Alexander

Charles Johnson: Majority

Johnson

MajorityBarbara Madsen: Majority

Madsen
(Majority)

DissentRichard Sanders: Dissent

Sanders
(Dissent)

ConcurrenceTom Chambers: Concurrence

Chambers
(Concurs)

Susan Owens: Majority

Owens

Mary Fairhurst: Majority

Fairhurst

James Johnson: Majority

Johnson

Debra Stephens: Concurrence

Stephens

Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.