recognizing that “[a]n accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “[a]n accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not.”
- "The trial court must receive substantial supporting evidence before making a finding of unavailability."
- “At the earlier trial, defendant was present, represented by counsel, had an opportunity to cross-examine [witness], and, through his counsel, did cross-examine her.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WYNN, Judge
concurring in the result.
I agree with the majority that, even if the trial court erroneously admitted the testimonial statements in violation of Crawford, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Defendant’s guilt. I do not agree with the majority’s discussion of Crawford, however, and I therefore concur in the result only.
In this case, the majority opinion analyzes multiple issues in light of Crawford, but ultimately concludes that all such errors were harmless. Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court deliberately left its holding in Crawford with unsettled issues, and the errors in this case were harmless, I believe the majority’s lengthy Crawford analysis is unnecessary to resolution of the case. Indeed, it is fundamental that our appellate courts should refine opinions to address only the issues necessary for resolution of each case. The Court thereby avoids the multiple evils of advisory opinions, questionable dicta, and other unnecessary expressions of views that may tie the Court’s hands in future cases or cause confusion among the state bar. See, e.g., Smith v. Norfolk & S. R.R Co., 114 N.C. 728, 749-50 , 19 S.E. 863, 869 (1894) (warning that, “it may be safely remarked that no science is more dependent upon the accuracy of its terms and definitions than that of the law; Looseness of language and dicta in judicial opinions, either silently acquiesced in or perpetuated by inadvertent repetition, often insidiously exert their influence until they result in confusing the application of the law, or themselves become crystallized into a kind of authority which the courts, without reference to true principle, are constrained to follow.”); Currie v. Worthy, 48 N.C. (1 Jones Eq.) 315, 319-20 (1856) (“dicta do not fix the law; and I will take occasion to say, that the habit in which Judges, particularly on this side of the Atlantic, indulge, of writing dissertations instead of confining themselves to the point presented by the case, which is done either to display their learning or to save others from the trouble of thinking, so far from tending to fix the law, tends to unsettle it, and create confusion.”); Thomas Fowler, Are Unnecessary “Holdings” Dicta?, North Carolina State Bar Journal, Summer 2003 (noting that, “In light of the widespread use of electronic legal *294 research, it may be more important than ever for appellate judges to clearly state in their opinions what their holding is, and to avoid discussions of matters that are not necessary to that holding); Michael C. Dorf, Dicta and Article III, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1997 , 2004 (1994) (discussing the difficulties arising from the lack of consistency among courts as to the proper scope of judicial holdings).
Since, for the sake of argument, we could assume there was error and dispose of this matter under a harmless error analysis, I believe it imprudent to, for instance, set forth a Crawford “three-fold” test with attending “prongs.” Crawford is a momentous case handed down by the United States Supreme Court only four months ago. This Court, like federal and state courts across the country, will be addressing the impact of Crawford on countless individual cases to come. The significance of Crawford should be allowed time to develop and mature on a case-by-case basis with the benefit of briefs and arguments by litigants. It is premature to attempt to fashion a definitive Crawford “test” to be applied in all cases. For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the result only.