People v. Lewis .
| Decision Date | 12 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 274508. |
| Citation | 287 Mich.App. 356,788 N.W.2d 461 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. LEWIS (ON REMAND). |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
287 Mich.App. 356
788 N.W.2d 461
PEOPLE
v.
LEWIS (ON REMAND).
Docket No. 274508.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2009, at Lansing.
Decided Jan. 12, 2010.
Approved for publication March 4, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, B. Eric Restuccia, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Jeffrey Caminsky, Principal Attorney, Appeals, for the people.
Gerald M. Lorence, Farmington Hills, for defendant.
Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and WILDER, JJ.
ON REMAND
In People v. Lewis, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 15, 2008 (Docket No. 274508), 2008 WL 1733718, we affirmed defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316. Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated our opinion in part and remanded “for reconsideration of ... defendant's Confrontation Clause, sufficiency of the evidence, and ineffective assistance issues in light of Melendez-Diaz.” People v. Lewis, 485 Mich. 878, 772 N.W.2d 47 (2009). We again affirm.
As we stated in our previous opinion:
Defendant's conviction[ ] ar[o]se from the death of his longtime girlfriend, Tomeka Cook. After a dispute with
defendant over money, Cook was found dead with multiple stab wounds. [ Lewis, unpub. op. at 1.]
An autopsy was performed on Cook's body and the trial court admitted into evidence the autopsy report prepared by two nontestifying medical examiners through the testimony of a third medical examiner from the same laboratory, Dr. Carl Schmidt. In his first claim on remand, defendant argues that the admission of the autopsy report violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. We disagree. This issue is unpreserved because defendant failed to object to the admission of the autopsy report and Dr. Schmidt's testimony on Sixth Amendment grounds. Therefore, we review defendant's claim for plain error that affected his substantial rights. People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 764, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999); People v. Bauder, 269 Mich.App. 174, 180, 712 N.W.2d 506 (2005).
We will reverse only if we determine that, although defendant was actually innocent, the plain error caused him to be convicted, or if the error “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” regardless of his innocence. [ People v. Thomas, 260 Mich.App. 450, 454, 678 N.W.2d 631 (2004) (citation omitted).]
The Confrontation Clause provides: “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him....” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. Our state constitution also guarantees the same right. Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20. To preserve this right, testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant was unavailable at trial and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination of the declarant.
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 50-51, 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004);
People v. Shepherd, 472 Mich. 343, 347, 697 N.W.2d 144 (2005). 1 Statements are testimonial where the “primary purpose” of the statements or the questioning that elicits them “ is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006).
In our previous opinion, we thoroughly discussed this Court's applications of Crawford in People v. Jambor (On Remand), 273 Mich.App. 477, 729 N.W.2d 569 (2007), and People v. Lonsby, 268 Mich.App. 375, 707 N.W.2d 610 (2005). On the basis of these decisions, we concluded that the autopsy report was nontestimonial because it “was ‘not prepared in anticipation of litigation against defendant,’ but pursuant to a ‘duty imposed by law,’ MRE 803(8).” Lewis, unpub. op. at 4 (citation omitted), citing Jambor. We also noted that a medical examiner is required by statute to investigate the cause and manner of death of an individual under certain circumstances, including death by violence, MCL 52.202(1)(a), and thus further concluded that the admission of the autopsy report through Dr. Schmidt's testimony did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under Crawford and Davis. 2
Our Supreme Court has instructed this Court to reconsider defendant's Confrontation Clause argument in light of Melendez-Diaz. That case involved the use of affidavits by forensic analysts to support the defendant's convictions of distributing and trafficking in cocaine. --- U.S. at ----, 129 S.Ct. at 2530-2531, 174 L.Ed.2d at 319-321. At trial, over the defendant's objection, the court admitted three notarized “certificates of analysis” from nontestifying laboratory analysts who, at the request of the police, tested the substance in bags seized by the police. Id. The certificates stated that chemical testing identified the substance in the bags as cocaine. Id. Massachusetts' law permitted the certificates to serve as “ ‘prima facie evidence of the composition, quality, and the net weight’ ” of the narcotic analyzed, and the trial court held that the authors of the certificates were not subject to confrontation. --- U.S. at ----, 129 S.Ct. at 2532, 174 L.Ed.2d at 321.
On appeal, the defendant in Melendez-Diaz, --- U.S. at ----, 129 S.Ct. at 2531, 174 L.Ed.2d at 320, challenged the admission of the certificates and claimed that the analysts were required to testify in person. The United States Supreme Court reversed the defendant's convictions,
holding that the admission of the documents violated the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirmed the principles set forth in Crawford. Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, reiterated Crawford's description of “the class of testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause,” 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.” [--- U.S. at ----, 129 S.Ct. at 2531, 174 L.Ed.2d at 321, quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (quotation marks and citations omitted).]
The Supreme Court concluded in Melendez-Diaz that the “certificates of analysis” were affidavits, and that they were statements offered against the defendant to prove a contested fact. --- U.S. at ----, 129 S.Ct. at 2532, 174 L.Ed.2d at 321. As such, the certificates were testimonial in nature and subject to the Confrontation Clause. Id. The fact that the “sole purpose” of the certificates was to serve as prima facie evidence at trial further supported the Court's conclusion that they were testimonial. Id. The Supreme Court summarized its conclusion:
In short, under our decision in Crawford the analysts' affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were “witnesses” for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that petitioner had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, petitioner was entitled to “ ‘be confronted with’ ” the analysts at trial. Crawford, supra, at 54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gioglio
...those facts demonstrate a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. People v. Lewis (On Remand), 287 Mich.App. 356, 364, 788 N.W.2d 461 (2010). “When a defendant asserts that his assigned lawyer is not adequate or diligent ... the judge should hear his ......
-
CUESTA-RODRIGUEZ v. State of Okla.
...toxicologist that victim's toxicology report revealed fatal amounts of carbon monoxide in her body). But see, People v. Lewis, 287 Mich.App. 356, 788 N.W.2d 461 (2010) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation under Melendez-Diaz where substitute medical examiner testified about autopsy re......
- Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co.
-
People v. Remand)
...the defendant at trial, whereas the autopsy report was prepared pursuant to a duty imposed by statute. People v. Lewis (On Remand), 287 Mich.App. 356, 362–363, 788 N.W.2d 461 (2010). The Court further commented that “unlike the way the certificates in Melendez–Diaz were used, Dr. [Carl] Sch......
-
The Confrontation Clause and Forensic Autopsy Reports - A 'Testimonial
...findings—and excludes the examining pathologist’s opinions on cause and manner of death. See infra Part IV.C. 311. People v. Lewis, 788 N.W.2d 461, 466–67 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010), aff’g judgment, vacating in part , People v. Lewis, 806 N.W.2d 295 (Mich. 2011). 312. Id. 150 LOUISIANA LAW REVIE......