State v. Barksdale, No. 57608-9-I (Wash. App. 4/16/2007), 57608-9-I.
| Decision Date | 16 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 57608-9-I.,57608-9-I. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CALVIN JAKE BARKSDALE, Appellant. |
Appeal from King County Superior Court. Docket No: 05-1-08495-9. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 12/23/2005. Judge signing: Honorable Carol A Schapira.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch PLLC, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA, 98122.
Eric J. Nielsen, Nielsen Broman & Koch PLLC, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA, 98122-2842.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98104.
James Morrissey Whisman, King County Prosecutor's Office, 516 3rd Ave Ste W554, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362.
Public records, like business records, are not testimonial for purposes of the confrontation clause. Because the records at issue in this case are public records, the trial court did not err in admitting them. And even if the Supreme Court chooses to overturn the precedent of this court, and find the admission of similar evidence to be erroneous, any such error would be harmless because other evidence in the record establishes the same facts. We affirm.
The substantive facts of this case are undisputed. On April 25, 2005, Calvin Barksdale was pulled over for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested and charged with possession of cocaine, second degree driving while license suspended or revoked, and operating a motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device. The interlock charge was subsequently dismissed.
At the pretrial hearing, Barksdale argued that portions of documents from the Department of Licensing (DOL) were testimonial, and thus violated his confrontation rights as described in Crawford v. Washington.1 There were two letters in the record from DOL. The first letter is dated December 16, 2005 and was prepared by DOL in response to the prosecutor's request for information about Barksdale's driving record. The pertinent part of the letter states:
After a diligent search of the computer files, the official record indicates on April 21, 2005, the following statements apply to the status of the above-named person:
Had not reinstated his/her driving privilege. Was suspended/revoked in the second degree. Subject was not eligible to reinstate his/her driving privilege on the above date of arrest.
Had not been issued a valid Washington license.
Barksdale objected to the following statements as containing testimonial hearsay: "Had not reinstated his/her driving privilege," "Was suspended/revoked in the second degree," and "Subject was not eligible to reinstate his/her driving privilege on the above date of arrest." His counsel conceded, however, that the sentence, "Had not been issued a valid Washington license," was admissible without live testimony under this court's recent decision in State v. N.M.K.2 After hearing argument on the matter, the trial court agreed to exclude the sentence, "Was suspended/revoked in the second degree."
The second DOL letter was dated May 9, 2003. This letter was sent directly to Barksdale and advises him that his right to drive was suspended as of July 2, 2003, that the suspension would continue until July 2, 2005, and that he would not be eligible for reinstatement until July 2, 2005. Barksdale did not object to the admissibility of this letter.
The day after the court made its admissibility rulings, Barksdale waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated the court could consider the police report and other documents, including DOL records. The trial court found Barksdale guilty on the remaining two counts and sentenced Barksdale to 6 months confinement for each count to be served concurrently. Barksdale appeals.
Barksdale contends that this court's recent decisions in State v. Kronich3 and State v. N.M.K. were wrongly decided and that we should overrule them, or at the very least stay this case pending the Supreme Court's resolution of Kronich and N.M.K. on appeal. In N.M.K., the defendant argued that the introduction of a certified copy of the absence of a driver's license violated his confrontation rights under Crawford. The certified copy was the same kind of document at issue in this litigation and declared "'that after a diligent search of computer files there is no document or other evidence . . . to indicate that . . . the [DOL] had issued a valid license to' N.M.K."4 This court rejected N.M.K.'s argument. First, this court reasoned that the statement at issue fell "squarely within the absence of a public record exception to hearsay."5 Furthermore, this court explained: Such an exception parallels the absence of a business record exception that ER 803(a)(7) describes. The express language of Crawford states that "business records" are not testimonial. But we see no reason in law...
To continue reading
Request your trial