Opinion ID: 1922322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Crawford Decision

Text: In Crawford's trial for assault and attempted murder, the tape-recorded statement of Crawford's wife was offered as evidence to rebut Crawford's claim that he attacked the victim in self-defense. [7] At trial, Crawford's wife did not testify because of Washington State's marital privilege. [8] The privilege, however, did not extend to statements made outside of court that were admissible under a hearsay exception, and Crawford's wife's statements were admitted notwithstanding the marital privilege. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 40, 124 S.Ct. at 1357-58. Crawford argued that the admission of his wife's out-of-court statement violated his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Id. at 40, 124 S.Ct. at 1358. The Supreme Court examined its holding in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), that the right to confrontation will not prevent the admission of a statement made against a criminal defendant by an unavailable witness if the statement possesses adequate `indicia of reliability,' meaning that the statement either fall[s] within a `firmly rooted hearsay exception' or bear[s] `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.' Crawford, 541 U.S. at 40, 124 S.Ct. at 1358 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539). Primarily, the Court noted that two inferences about the Confrontation Clause could be gleaned from history, the first of which is that the principal evil that the Confrontation Clause was meant to address was the use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused. Id. at 50, 124 S.Ct. at 1363. The second inference about the Confrontation Clause, supported by history, is that the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless ... [the witness] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. at 53-54, 124 S.Ct. at 1365. The prior opportunity to cross-examine is a condition precedent for the admissibility of testimonial statements, with some exceptions. The Court stated that this conclusion was not meant [to] deny that [t]here were always exceptions to the general rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence.... But there is scant evidence that exceptions were invoked to admit testimonial statements against the accused in a criminal case. [Most of the hearsay] exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial  for example, business records or statements in furtherance of a conspiracy. We do not infer from these that the Framers thought exceptions would apply even to prior testimony. Cf. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (plurality opinion) ([A]ccomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule). Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56, 124 S.Ct. at 1367 (footnotes omitted). The text of the Confrontation Clause regarding witnesses against the accused was interpreted by the Court to mean those individuals who bear testimony against the accused. Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364. Noting Roberts's conditioning of the admissibility of all hearsay evidence on whether it falls under a firmly rooted hearsay exception or bears particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, the Court found that the Roberts test departed from the noted historical inferences about the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 60, 124 S.Ct. at 1369. The Court ultimately rejected the Roberts test for testimonial statements, concluding that conditioning the admissibility of all hearsay evidence on its reliability, and leaving the Confrontation Clause's protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence, was inconsistent with the Framers' intent. Id. at 61, 124 S.Ct. at 1370. While the Supreme Court was reluctant to detail a comprehensive definition of testimonial, it did provide some guidance. The Court noted: Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in  court testimony or its functional equivalent  that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially[;] extrajudicial statements ... contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions[;] statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial[.] Id. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (citations omitted). Testimony was defined as [a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (quoting 1 N. WEBSTER, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1828)). The Supreme Court mentioned that there are multiple examples of testimonial statements and remarked particularly that statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are testimonial. Id. at 52, 124 S.Ct. at 1364. The Court stopped short of establishing a complete definition of what is testimonial, but noted that prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial ... and... police interrogations are considered to be testimonial. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374. We recently discussed Crawford and the admission of testimonial statements in connection with the Confrontation Clause in State v. Snowden, 385 Md. 64, 867 A.2d 314 (2005). Snowden was arrested, and eventually convicted, on several counts of sexual abuse based on information obtained during an interview between a sexual abuse investigator with the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, and the alleged victims. Id. at 69-71, 867 A.2d at 316-17. The State filed a motion to invoke Md.Code (2001), § 11-304 of the Criminal Procedure Article. [9] Id. at 73, 867 A.2d at 318-19. The investigator's testimony was found to be sufficient under § 11-304 and was permitted by the trial judge after an examination of the children. Id. at 73, 867 A.2d at 319. Snowden objected, arguing that this admission was in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but the trial court overruled his objection and Snowden was found guilty on all counts. Id. at 74, 867 A.2d at 319. In our analysis, we addressed the Supreme Court's categorization of testimonial statements in Crawford: As the Court noted, these standards share a common nucleus in that each involves a formal or official statement made or elicited with the purpose of being introduced at a criminal trial. Id. at 1364, 1367, n. 7 (finding that statements are testimonial where government officers [are involved] in the production of testimony with an eye toward trial). Although these standards focus on the objective quality of the statement made, the uniting theme underlying the Crawford holding is that when a statement is made in the course of a criminal investigation initiated by the government, the Confrontation Clause forbids its introduction unless the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 1364. Id. at 81, 867 A.2d at 324. Analyzing Crawford, we opined: In the context of police interrogations, we are directed by Crawford to conclude that the proper standard to apply to determine whether a statement is testimonial is whether the statements were made under circumstances that would lead an objective declarant reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Id. at 83, 867 A.2d at 325 (quoting Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). We noted that, notwithstanding the children's awareness of why they were being interviewed, the express purpose of bringing the children to the facility to be interviewed was to develop their testimony for possible use at trial. Id. at 85, 867 A.2d at 326 (emphasis added.) Disregarding the State's arguments as to the nature of the interviews with the children, we held that, [n]o matter what other motives exist, if the circumstances of the given statement would lead an objective person to believe that the statements made in response to government interrogation would be used at trial later, the admission of those statements must be subject to the requirements of Crawford. Id. at 92, 867 A.2d at 330. Whether an autopsy report is testimonial in nature pursuant to Crawford is an issue of first impression in Maryland. We turn to the decisions of states that have decided this issue and similar issues. Several jurisdictions have interpreted Crawford strictly, finding that reports that do not fall within the three enumerated categories of testimonial statements specified in Crawford do not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561, 102 P.3d 628 (2004) (holding that a blood-alcohol report was not testimonial because it did not fall within the categories of testimonial statements enumerated in Crawford and because the report was not prepared by law enforcement personnel). In Moreno Denoso v. State, 156 S.W.3d 166 (Tex.Ct.App.2005), the defendant objected to the admission of an autopsy report because the maker of the report had died and did not testify at trial. Id. at 181. The trial court in Moreno Denoso found that the autopsy report was admissible as a public record. Id. at 180. The court noted that the autopsy report set forth matters pursuant to a duty imposed by law, and detailed the state of decomposition of the body in addition to observations about the victim's body. Id. at 180, 182. The Moreno Denoso court found that the autopsy report did not fit within the enumerated categories in Crawford, and therefore, it was non-testimonial and admissible. Id. See also Mitchell v. State, No. 04-04-00885-CR, 2005 WL 3477857 (Tex.App. Dec.21, 2005) (finding that an autopsy report is not testimonial evidence in violation of Crawford because it is a business record, and therefore, nontestimonial). Crawford's reference to the business records as non-testimonial statements has led other jurisdictions to hold that finding evidence to be a business record automatically excepts that document from Confrontation Clause scrutiny. See People v. Brown 9 Misc.3d 420, 801 N.Y.S.2d 709, 712-13 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2005); Commonwealth v. Verde, 444 Mass. 279, 827 N.E.2d 701, 706 (2005); People v. Hinojos-Mendoza, No. 03CA0645, slip op. at 11-13, 2005 WL 2561391 (Colo.Ct.App. July 28, 2005). In People v. Durio, 7 Misc.3d 729, 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 (2005), the defendant objected to the admission of both the autopsy report of the victim and the testimony of an assistant medical examiner offered in place of the medical examiner who prepared the report. Durio, 794 N.Y.S.2d at 864. The court noted that Crawford had specifically exempted business records from scrutiny under the Confrontation Clause because they are outside the core class of testimonial statements that were meant to be excluded by the clause. Id. at 867. Interpreting Crawford, the court in Durio stated: The essence of the business records hearsay exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are `by their nature' not prepared for litigation. Id. An autopsy report can be considered a business record under New York law based on the rationale that [r]ecords systematically made for the conduct of a business are inherently highly trustworthy because they are routine reflections of day-to-day operations and because the entrant's obligation is to have them truthful and accurate for purposes of the conduct of the enterprise. Id. at 868 (citation omitted). The court in Durio gave the following reasoning for the admission of the autopsy report without violation of the Confrontation Clause: The [Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME)] is not a law enforcement agency and is by law, independent of and not subject to the control of the office of the prosecutor. OCME is required simply to investigate unnatural deaths and is required to perform autopsies in a number of situations only one of which is when the death is potentially the product of a homicidal act.... OCME is not authorized to gather evidence or determine the identity of a particular perpetrator and is not responsible for enforcing any criminal laws. OCME's independence distinguishes its autopsy reports from the blood test report held to be testimonial in People v[.] Rogers (8 A.D.3d 888, 891, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393 [3d Dept 2004]). The autopsy report in this case was not manufactured for the benefit of the prosecution. Indeed, an autopsy is often conducted before a suspect is identified or even before a homicide is suspected. That it may be presented as evidence in a homicide trial does not mean that it was composed for that accusatory purpose or that its use by a prosecutor is the inevitable consequence of its composition. Id. at 868-69 (some citations omitted). The Durio court also noted the practical implications of treating autopsy reports as inadmissible testimonial hearsay: Years may pass between the performance of the autopsy and the apprehension of the perpetrator. This passage of time can easily lead to the unavailability of the examiner who prepared the autopsy report. Moreover, medical examiners who regularly perform hundreds of autopsies are unlikely to have any independent recollection of the autopsy at issue in a particular case and in testifying invariably rely entirely on the autopsy report. Unlike other forensic tests, an autopsy cannot be replicated by another pathologist. Certainly it would be against society's interests to permit the unavailability of the medical examiner who prepared the report to preclude the prosecution of a homicide case. Id. at 869. Other jurisdictions, such as those of Ohio, Alabama and Florida have held that classifying evidence that fits within a hearsay exception, such as business or public records, does not exempt such evidence from scrutiny under the Confrontation Clause pursuant to Crawford. In State v. Crager, 164 Ohio App.3d 816, 844 N.E.2d 390, 391 (2005), the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and murder. He challenged the introduction of a DNA report when the analyst who prepared the report was not present to testify. The court found that the report was testimonial under Crawford because it was prepared as part of a police investigation and a reasonable person could conclude that it would be available for use at a later trial. Id. at 396. The court in Crager held that the statement in Crawford referring to the business records exception was purely dictum, [10] and such a statement should [not] control over the [Supreme C]ourt's holding, which involves whether a statement is testimonial or [non-testimonial]. Id. at 397. The court also stated that, while some evidence may fall within the general business-records exception, other business records should still be subject to analysis under Crawford and be excluded from evidence if they are in fact testimonial. Id. at 397. Smith v. State, 898 So.2d 907 (Ala.Crim. App.2004), concerned a defendant's objection to the admission of an autopsy report and evidence admitted without the testimony of the doctor who performed the autopsy. Although the report was admissible as a business record, the court nevertheless held that it violated the Confrontation Clause because it allowed the State to prove cause of death, a crucial element in the case, without providing Smith with the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor who determined the cause of death. Id. at 915-16. The court noted that the testimony offered by the substitute medical examiner allowed the State to prove that the cause of death was asphyxiation, which was contrary to the defendant's claim that the victim died as a result of blows the defendant inflicted in self-defense. This error, however, was deemed harmless. The court observed that the autopsy report did not influence the jury's verdict, because the jury rejected the appellant's self-defense claim and returned a manslaughter verdict. Id. at 915 n. 4. See also Perkins v. State, 897 So.2d 457, 464 (Ala. Crim.App.2004) (finding that an autopsy report is non-testimonial in nature and, classified as a business record, it bear[s] the earmark of reliability and probability or trustworthiness). In Belvin v. State, No. 4D04-4235, 922 So.2d 1046, 1054 (Fla.App. 2006), the District Court of Appeal of Florida held that a breath test affidavit, prepared in connection with a breath test that was administered when the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), was testimonial hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible because petitioner did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the breath test technician. In Florida, the legislature passed laws allowing the state to introduce at trial an affidavit containing the necessary evidentiary foundation for breath test results. Id. at 1048-49 (citations omitted). The court in Belvin held that, because breath test affidavits are generated by law enforcement for use at a later criminal trial or driver's license revocation proceeding, they fall within the third enumerated category of testimonial statements in Crawford, as statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Id. at 1050. Rejecting the argument that the breath test affidavit was a public record pursuant to statute, the court in Belvin determined that the statutory listing of breath test affidavits under the public records and reports exception to the hearsay rule does not control whether they are testimonial under Crawford. Id. at 1050-51. The court agreed with Belvin, holding that the portions of the breath test affidavit pertaining to the procedures followed by the technician in administering the breath test was precisely the type of evidence considered testimonial in Crawford. Id. at 1051. We find the analysis of the court in Kansas v. Lackey, 280 Kan. 190, 120 P.3d 332 (2005), to be persuasive in resolving the issues in the instant case. [11] In Lackey, the defendant was charged with premeditated first-degree murder and rape and convicted, in part, based upon DNA evidence. Lackey, 120 P.3d at 342. Dr. William Eckert, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on the victim, died before Lackey's trial. Id. at 341. The State's expert, Dr. Erik Mitchell, reviewed Dr. Eckert's report, in conjunction with other evidence, and determined both the cause and time of death. Id. The defendant argued that the admission of Dr. Mitchell's expert opinion, based on the autopsy performed by Dr. Eckert, should not have been admitted as it violated the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 342. The autopsy report in Lackey contained an external, internal, and microscopic description of the body and did not suggest a date of death. Id. at 345. Dr. Mitchell testified that the condition of the victim's body suggested a specific window of time for her death, and that her death was caused by strangulation. Id. at 346. During Dr. Mitchell's testimony, the autopsy report was admitted over objection. The court reasoned that, even though the report was hearsay, it was not subjective, but was a medical doctor's rendition of what he observe[d]. Id. Using the standards of Ohio v. Roberts, supra , the court admitted the autopsy report into evidence. Lackey argued that Dr. Eckert's statements in the autopsy report were inadmissible under Crawford because they were testimonial and the defense had no opportunity for cross-examination. The Kansas Supreme Court noted that resolution of this issue involves multiple layers of analysis, including whether the autopsy report falls under a hearsay exception, whether it was testimonial under Crawford, and whether it could be used by the State's expert. Id. at 346. In conducting its analysis, the court in Lackey first determined if the autopsy report fell under a hearsay exception; whether the report was testimonial under Crawford; and finally, whether the State's expert could use the report. Id. The court found, inter alia, that the autopsy report fell under the business and official records hearsay exceptions, but was still subject to scrutiny under Crawford. The court in Lackey compared the autopsy report to the categories of testimonial statements enumerated in Crawford and also looked to the cases of other jurisdictions for guidance. After noting cases from Alabama, Texas and New York, the court cited to the intermediate appellate court's decision in the instant case, stating that it was the most balanced in its approach: Under such an approach, factual, routine, descriptive, and nonanalytical findings made in an autopsy report are [nontestimonial] and may be admitted without the testimony of the medical examiner. In contrast, contested opinions, speculations, and conclusions drawn from the objective findings in the report are testimonial and are subject to the Sixth Amendment right of cross-examination set forth in Crawford. Such testimonial opinions and conclusions should be redacted in the event that the medical examiner is unavailable. No denial of due process arises under this resolution because both parties are granted access to the objective findings of the autopsy report and both parties may proceed to obtain their own expert testimony, opinions, and conclusions based upon the objective findings of the medical examiner performing the autopsy. Id. at 351-55. Ultimately, the court in Lackey stated that the cause of death noted in the autopsy report, although testimonial in nature, was merely cumulative because it was an undisputed fact, and was already established through other opinion testimony. Id. at 352. The disputed fact in Lackey was the time of the victim's death. The court noted that the autopsy report did not contain a statement as to how long the victim had been deceased. Id. Because the disputed fact of time of death had already been established by evidence other than the autopsy report, the court found that any error in the admission of Dr. Eckert's statements as to the cause of death was harmless. Id.