Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007)

In Whorton v. Bockting, the underlying events began when Marvin Howard Bockting was accused of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter, Autumn, who was six years old at the time. The allegations surfaced after Autumn confided in her mother, Laura Bockting, that Bockting had forced her to engage in sexual acts. Following this revelation, Laura confronted Bockting, who denied any wrongdoing and subsequently left the household. After consulting a rape crisis hotline, Laura took Autumn to a hospital for an examination, which revealed strong physical evidence of sexual assault. Detective Charles Zinovitch later interviewed Autumn, who provided a detailed account of the assaults and demonstrated the acts using anatomically correct dolls. Bockting was subsequently arrested and indicted on multiple counts of sexual assault on a minor. The procedural history of the case involves Bockting's trial, during which the court had to determine whether Autumn could testify due to her distress. Ultimately, the court allowed Laura and Detective Zinovitch to recount Autumn's out-of-court statements under Nevada law, which permits such testimony if the child is deemed unavailable to testify. Bockting's defense objected to this decision, arguing that it violated his right to confront his accuser. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to address the question of whether the Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, which impacted the admissibility of hearsay evidence, was retroactive to cases that had already concluded on direct review. The relevant background context includes the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, which established that testimonial hearsay statements are inadmissible unless the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The Court's ruling in Whorton v. Bockting clarified that the Crawford decision does not apply retroactively, meaning that defendants whose cases were finalized before Crawford was decided would not benefit from its protections. This case highlights the tension between the rights of defendants and the need to protect vulnerable witnesses, particularly children, in sexual assault cases.

Whether, under the rules set out in Teague v. Lane, our decision in Crawford v. Washington is retroactive to cases already final on direct review.

s of Law and Order in Nevada v. Bockting , Case No. C–83110 (D. Nev., Sept. 5, 1994); App. 47, 119. Two days later, Detective Zinovitch interviewed Autumn in the presence of her mother, and at that time, Autumn provided a detailed description of acts of sexual assault carried out by respondent; Autumn also demonstrated those acts using anatomically correct dolls. Id., at 47–48; 119. Respondent was then arrested, and a state grand jury indicted him on four counts of sexual assault on a minor under 14 years of age. At respondent’s preliminary hearing, Autumn testified that she understood the difference between a truth and a lie, but she became upset when asked about the assaults. Although she initially agreed that respondent had touched her in a way that “[she] didn’t think he was supposed to touch [her],” id., at 14, she later stated that she could not remember how respondent had touched her or what she had told her mother or the detective, id., at 19–21. The trial court, however, found the testimony of Laura Bockting and Detective Zinovitch to be sufficient to hold respondent for trial. At trial, the court held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether Autumn could testify. After it became apparent that Autumn was too distressed to be sworn in, id., at 25–26, the State moved under Nev. Rev. Stat. §51.385 (2003)[ Footnote 1 ] to allow Laura Bockting and Detective Zinovitch to recount Autumn’s statements regarding the sexual assaults. App. 25–27. Under the Nevada statute, out-of-court statements made by a child under 10 years of age describing acts of sexual assault or physical abuse of the child may be admitted if the court finds that the child is unavailable or unable to testify and that “the time, content and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.” §51.385(1)(a). Over defense counsel’s objection that admission of this testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause, id., at 27–28, the trial court found sufficient evidence of reliability to satisfy §51.385. As a result of this ruling, Laura Bockting and