Court Opinion

ID: 9844319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:00:46.285411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:32.617480
License: Public Domain

FITZPATRICK, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would hold that the certificate of conviction submitted by the juvenile and domestic relations court judge (JDR judge) is testimonial hearsay. Thus, its admission in appellant’s circuit court trial de novo violated appellant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.17
*31The Supreme Court of the United States first made the distinction between testimonial and non-testimonial hearsay in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). While the Court declined “to spell out a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” it offered guidance as to what should be considered “testimonial” in that opinion. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374. The Court found that the Confrontation Clause “applies to ‘witnesses’ against the accused—in other words, those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (citation omitted). The Court defined testimony as a “ ‘solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).
The affidavit prepared by the JDR judge, the only evidence presented at appellant’s circuit court trial, is the definition of *32“testimonial hearsay.” We have noted earlier that one reason for entering such a certificate is because the trial judge “is an indispensable witness to the contemptuous event and his or her testimony is essential to prosecution of the offense on an appeal.” Baugh v. Commonwealth, 14 Va.App. 368, 372, 417 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1992) (emphasis added). Because the trial judge’s testimony is essential to the de novo appeal, and in this case was the only evidence against appellant, the judge himself is the defendant’s “accuser”—the very individual that the Constitution ensures that a defendant will be able to confront. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 43, 124 S.Ct. at 1359 (“the right to confront one’s accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times”); 541 U.S. at 46, 124 S.Ct. at 1361 (“our constitution [requires] that the person shall see his accuser” (citation omitted)); 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364 (“[a]n accuser who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony”). The statements at issue here are completely accusatory, as they detail the judge’s recitation of the facts that support his conclusion that appellant was in contempt of court.
Additionally, other courts have also determined that if the declarant is aware or expects that his statements may later be used at trial, this is a “determinative factor” in whether the statements are testimonial. United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228-29 (2d Cir.2004) (noting that the possible formulations set forth by the Supreme Court of what is “testimonial” all share that common feature). See also United States v. Arnold, 410 F.3d 895, 903-04 (6th Cir.2005) (“the decisive inquiry should be ‘whether a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would anticipate his statement being used against the accused in investigating and prosecuting the crime’ ” (citation omitted)); United States v. Manfre, 368 F.3d 832, 838 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004).
The manner of presenting this testimony, in a document certified by a judge that is analogous to an affidavit, bears a striking resemblance to the practice sanctioned by the Marian bail and committal statutes identified by Crawford as a specific example of abuse of the Confrontation Clause protections. *33Under the Marian bail and committal statutes, justices of the peace were directed to “examine suspects ... in felony cases and to certify the results [of that examination] to the court.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 44, 124 S.Ct. at 1360. The Supreme Court specifically noted that the practice sanctioned by the Marian statutes was an abridgement of the right to confrontation that the Sixth Amendment was designed to prohibit. Id. at 50, 124 S.Ct. at 1363. Here, the JDR judge “certified” his recollection of appellant’s acts to the circuit court, and that certification constituted the only basis for appellant’s conviction in his trial de novo in circuit court. The certificate’s resemblance to the reports issued under the Marian statutes, coupled with the Supreme Court’s reliance on such historical abuses in defining the word “testimonial,” leads to the inescapable conclusion that the certificate is testimonial.
Because the certificate is testimonial, its admission into evidence is proper only if the Commonwealth proved that the JDR judge was unavailable to testify at the circuit court trial and that appellant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. It is undisputed that the JDR judge was unavailable to testify. Code § 19.2-271 prohibits any judge from testifying as a witness to matters that come before him in the course of his official duties. However, it is also undisputed that appellant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine the JDR judge and test the reliability of the certified testimony in the “crucible of cross-examination.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61, 124 S.Ct. at 1370. Both parties concede that after appellant left the courthouse and failed to take a drug test, she had no opportunity to confront the JDR judge.
Although Code § 18.2-459 allows a circuit court judge to consider the certificate in the de novo contempt appeal, “[o]urs is a government whose powers are limited by the Constitution. Where statutory enactments and common-law rules come into conflict with constitutional principles, the latter must prevail.” Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 238 Va. 595, 600, 385 S.E.2d 865, 868 (1989). See Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 686, 8 S.Ct. 992, 996-97, 32 L.Ed. 253 (1888) (“if the incompatibility of the Constitution and the statute is *34clear or palpable, the courts must give effect to the former”). While actions of the General Assembly are presumed to be constitutional, as the majority emphasizes, courts will declare legislation invalid when it is “repugnant to some provision of the state or federal constitution.” Etheridge v. Medical Center Hospitals, 237 Va. 87, 94, 376 S.E.2d 525, 528 (1989) (citation omitted). Because I would find that admission of the judge’s certificate violates a defendant’s constitutional rights, the authorizing state statute cannot override the constitutional requirement as outlined in Crawford.
Additionally, I disagree with the majority’s contention that the appeal to circuit court was something less than a “trial de novo.” An adult convicted of an offense in a juvenile and domestic relations court has the right to a trial de novo. Code §§ 16.1-296(E), 16.1-136. The procedural mandates set forth in Code § 18.2-459 do not alter the fundamental de novo nature of the trial. Baugh, 14 Va.App. at 373, 417 S.E.2d at 894 (the admission of the certificate of the lower court judge “does not effect the de novo nature of the trial”). An appeal to a circuit court “from a court not of record under Code § 16.1-136 annuls the judgment of the inferior tribunal as completely as if there had been no previous trial.” Walker v. Department of Public Welfare of Page County, 223 Va. 557, 563, 290 S.E.2d 887, 890 (1982); see Austin v. Commonwealth, 42 Va.App. 33, 38, 590 S.E.2d 68, 71 (2003). Thus an appeal of appellant’s contempt conviction is a trial de novo with its attendant procedural and substantive protections.
For the reasons stated, I dissent and would reverse appellant’s conviction for contempt.

. As an initial matter, I would hold that appellant's right of confrontation is ensured in a criminal contempt proceeding as a matter of due *31process. While not all constitutional rights apply to contempt proceedings, courts have afforded litigants being charged with contempt a broad panoply of rights to ensure that they receive due process, and there is no logical reason to fail to apply the rights secured by the Confrontation Clause to a contempt proceeding. Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 616, 80 S.Ct. 1038, 1042, 4 L.Ed.2d 989 (1960) ("[pjrocedural safeguards for criminal contempts do not derive from the Sixth Amendment’’); Davis v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 395, 397-98, 247 S.E.2d 681, 682 (1978). See Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131, 136, 85 S.Ct. 1375, 1378, 14 L.Ed.2d 290 (1965) (holding that a defendant charged with contempt has a right to an opportunity to be heard, to be represented by counsel, and to file motions and pleadings essential to his claims); Carter v. Commonwealth, 2 Va.App. 392, 396, 345 S.E.2d 5, 8 (1986) (deciding that the rules of evidence apply to a criminal contempt trial and requiring the prosecution to prove contempt beyond a reasonable doubt).
Courts have long noted the potential for abuse that accompanies contempt proceedings, because "contemptuous conduct, though short of a personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in a controversy that he cannot ‘hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused.’ ” Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct. 2697, 2704, 41 L.Ed.2d 897 (1974) (citation omitted). Thus, ensuring that individuals charged with contempt receive the benefit of Sixth Amendment protections "accords with our historic notions of elementary fairness. While we have no desire ‘to imprison the discretion of judges within rigid mechanical rules,’ we remain unpersuaded that 'the additional time and expense possibly involved ... will seriously handicap the effective functioning of the courts.’ ” Id. at 500, 94 S.Ct. at 2704 (citations omitted).