Is a forensic pathologist's testimony on two autopies performed by a nontestifying pathologist harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Trujeque, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 349 P.3d 103, 61 Cal.4th 227 (Cal. 2015):
Relying on Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, and its progeny, defendant claims that the forensic pathologist's testimony on the two autopsies performed by nontestifying pathologists violated his confrontation rights under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, defendant maintains that the conclusions in the autopsy reports were testimonial hearsay, and that the prosecution made no showing that the two
[61 Cal.4th 275]
pathologists who conducted the autopsies were unavailable to testify. He adds that the pathologist's surrogate testimony precluded him from meaningfully testing the nontestifying pathologist's honesty, proficiency, and methodology. (MelendezDiaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305, 321, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314.) We conclude that we need not decide this claim on the merits because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24, 87 S.Ct. 824.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
