Giles v. California, 128 S. Ct.

2678 (2008)

The defendant, Dwayne Giles, was tried in state court in California for the murder of his ex-girlfriend,
Brenda Avie. Giles claimed he had killed Avie in self-defense. He claimed that Avie had threatened him
and run at him. He claimed, therefore, that he killed her to defend himself. In support of his claim, Giles
also stated that Avie had a history of violent behavior and had threatened him in the past.

One witness stated that she had heard multiple gunshots. She stated that Giles held a shotgun and
stood eleven feet from an unresponsive Avie. Avie did not have a weapon.

The trial court admitted evidence of previous statements to police officers detailing prior assaults in
which Avie stated that Giles had threatened to kill her. The court admitted the statements under
California Evidence Code Section 1370, which permits the admission of hearsay describing the infliction
or threat of physical injury when the declarant is unavailable and the statements are trustworthy.[3]
Giles appealed his conviction. During the pendency of his appeal, the Supreme Court decided Crawford
v. Washington. The appeal c concluded that Giles had forfeited his right to confront the victim’s
testimony by making it impossible for her to testify against him through the very act he was on trial for,
killing Avie. The jury found Giles guilty of premeditated first-degree murder.

Giles appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeals on the grounds that the admission of
Avie’s statements prior to the assault had violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. The
California Court of Appeals concluded that Giles had forfeited his right to confront Avie because he had
committed the murder for which he was on trial, and because his intentional criminal act made Avie
unavailable to testify. The California Supreme Court affirmed on the same ground. Giles appealed this
decision to the Supreme Court, which held that forfeiture by wrongdoing is established when the
prosecution establishes that the defendant wrongfully caused the declarant’s absence and that the
defendant did so with the intention of preventing the declarant’s testimony or cooperation.
Significantly, the Court also noted that acts of domestic violence are often intended to dissuade a victim
from resorting to outside help. It further held that a defendant’s prior abuse or threatened abuse,
intended to prevent a victim from seeking outside help would be highly relevant to determining the
intention of a defendant’s subsequent act causing the declarant’s absence.