Opinion ID: 2044007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: M.H.'s Vehicle

Text: In response to defense testimony that M.H. was seen getting into a dark red or maroon, four-door car on February 25, and that, around 5:05 p.m. on February 25, a neighbor saw a dark sedaneither black or dark blue or possibly maroon 4-doorin Thoms's driveway, the State presented rebuttal testimony by Deputy Downie. He testified that after hearing defense testimony, [he] checked the motor vehicle records in the state computer for [M.H.]. And it showed a red Corsica, which was the vehicle that I was aware from dealing with [M.H.] previously that he was currently driving. It showed that the transactionor the transfer date for that vehicle was 4/27 of 2005. And I confirmed that the previous owner of that vehicle sold that vehicle to [M.H.] on 4/27 of '05, and followed him to the Department of Motor Vehicles on that same date to make sure it was transferred. Two statements are contained in this answer: (1) the motor vehicle transfer record and (2) confirmation by the previous owner of the sale and registration of the Corsica. We look first at the motor vehicle transfer record to determine if its admission was an error that was plain, and we conclude that it was not. This record was not prepared for purposes of litigation and, therefore, it is not testimonial. Accordingly, we hold that the admission of Downie's testimony as to the content of this record was not an error that was plain, and that this issue therefore is not properly before us. [19] Deputy Downie's testimony regarding the statement by the previous owner of M.H.'s red Corsica, however, violated the Confrontation Clause because the statement was gathered for purposes of litigation. The testimony was also inadmissible hearsay. The district court therefore committed error that was plain when it admitted the testimony. But this testimony was cumulative of the testimony regarding the motor vehicle transfer record. In addition, the fact that ownership of the red Corsica did not transfer to M.H. until 2 months after the murder does not mean that M.H. was not driving it on the day of the murder. The defense theory was not that M.H. owned the red Corsica on February 25. Rather, the defense theory was that M.H. was seen driving a vehicle similar to the one allegedly seen in Thoms's driveway that day. Our review of the record confirms that the verdict was not attributable to this error. We therefore hold that Tscheu did not meet his burden to show that the error is properly before us for review. Affirmed. MAGNUSON, C.J., and DIETZEN, J., not having been members of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.