Opinion ID: 2788817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Documents of the Chief Medical Examiner

Text: [¶12] Finally, the mother argues that documents produced during the criminal investigation into the son’s death—the investigative report, the autopsy, and the neuropathology report—were hearsay and that admitting them in evidence violated her substantive due process rights because she was unable to cross-examine their author. “A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude alleged hearsay evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,” Walton v. Ireland, 2014 ME 130, ¶ 12, 104 A.3d 883 (quotation marks omitted), but we review de novo the application of the Confrontation Clause, State v. Johnson, 2014 ME 83, ¶ 8, 95 A.3d 621. 9 [¶13] The Confrontation Clause provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also Me. Const. art. I, § 6. This right does not extend to civil matters, however. See, e.g., Covell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 791 N.E.2d 877, 893 (Mass. 2003) (“There is no right of confrontation in civil proceedings.”). [¶14] “The due process to which a parent in a child custody proceeding is entitled does not rise to the same level as that accorded the defendant in a criminal prosecution.” In re Jo-Nell C., 493 A.2d 1053, 1055 (Me. 1985). Child protection proceedings, although “deserving of more elaborate procedural safeguards than are required for the determination of lesser civil entitlements” due to the “constitutional dimension” of the right to parent, id., are nonetheless civil matters. The Confrontation Clause therefore does not apply in child protection proceedings. See, e.g., In re Noah W., 813 A.2d 365, 371 (N.H. 2002) (“Because an action to terminate parental rights is a civil proceeding, the Sixth Amendment confers no right of confrontation on the respondent.”); In re A.L., 669 A.2d 1168, 1170 (Vt. 1995) (“[P]arents do not have a right to face-to-face confrontation in [child protection] proceedings.”).2 The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 2 See also In re D.B., 947 A.2d 443, 449 n.11 (D.C. 2008); In re L.K.S., 451 N.W.2d 819, 822 (Iowa 1990); In re J.D.C., 159 P.3d 974, 981 (Kan. 2007); In re S.A., 708 N.W.2d 673, 679 & n.8 (S.D. 2005) (citing cases). 10 documents, all of which were accompanied by a certificate of the Chief Medical Examiner. See 22 M.R.S. § 3022(6) (2014) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of evidence, the certificate of the Chief Medical Examiner . . . shall be received in any court as prima facie evidence of any fact stated in the certificate or documents attached to the certificate.”). The entry is: Judgment affirmed. On the briefs: Jamesa J. Drake, Esq., Drake Law, LLC, Auburn, for appellant father Adam P. Sherman, Esq., Paradie, Sherman, Walker &Worden, Lewiston, for appellant mother Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Meghan Szylvian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services Lewiston District Court docket number PC-2013-73 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY