Seely v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed John Leelyn Seely’s rape conviction and addressed whether hearsay statements by his three-year-old daughter, relayed through her mother and a social worker, violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The court applied Crawford and Davis to distinguish testimonial from nontestimonial statements, holding that the child’s statements to her mother were nontestimonial and examining the primary purpose of the social worker’s interview. The court affirmed the conviction.

Holdings

1. J.B.'s statements to her mother were nontestimonial and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause.
2. J.B.'s statements to Smith were nontestimonial because the objective primary purpose of Smith's interview was medical treatment rather than gathering evidence for a later criminal prosecution.
3. The testimonial character of a hearsay statement must be determined objectively from the circumstances and the primary purposes of both the declarant and, when relevant, the person asking the questions. Statements to government officials are presumptively testimonial but may be nontestimonial when their primary purpose is obtaining assistance in an emergency; statements to nongovernmental persons are presumptively nontestimonial but may be testimonial when their primary purpose is creating evidence for court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether J.B.'s statements to her mother were testimonial hearsay subject to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether J.B.'s statements to social worker Trish Smith were testimonial hearsay subject to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

Disposition

reversed