Hemphill v. New York

Admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence against a criminal defendant is not excused by the fact that the defendant made such evidence relevant through their arguments.

Respondent State of New York offered the transcript of a third-party’s plea allocution as evidence against Petitioner at Petitioner’s criminal trial because the third-party was unavailable to testify. Petitioner argued that the admission of the plea allocution violated his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioner was convicted and appealed to the New York Appellate Division, which affirmed because Petitioner opened the door to admitting the allocution to correct a misleading impression he had created. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that New York’s rule that allows admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence when a criminal defendant’s arguments made such evidence necessary violated the Sixth Amendment. The Court concluded that because the New York rule that permitted the admission of the transcript dictated “what material is relevant and admissible in a case,” it was a substantive modification of the confrontation right and not merely a procedural rule. Under Crawford v. Washington, 345 US 36 (2004), the admission of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused is subject only to the exceptions recognized at the time of the founding. The Court rejected the State’s argument that its rule was necessary to protect the truth-finding function of courts because that concern did not override the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. The Court noted that other rules of evidence still allow trial courts to consider the probative value of evidence. Ultimately, because New York’s rule provided an exception to the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, and such an exception was not recognized at the time of the founding, the rule violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights. REVERSED and REMANDED