Green v. State
22 A.3d 941
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Anthony Green indicted in Prince George’s County Circuit Court on attempted murder and multiple offenses including sexual crimes, burglary, trespass, and drug possession.
- The State nolle prossed possession of CDS; court granted judgment of acquittal on sodomy, third-degree burglary, trespass, and one count of second-degree assault.
- Jury found Green guilty of third-degree sexual offense, fourth-degree sexual offense, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment; fourth-degree sexual offense merged for sentencing.
- Question on appeal: whether admitting a redacted report from a Sexual Assault Center nurse (Slaughter) without cross-examining the preparer violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- Evidence included WHC records, SAFE nurse examination, and redacted vs unredacted Sexual Assault Center records; nurse unavailable for cross-examination.
- Trial court admitted portions of Slaughter’s report as routine/for medical purposes while deleting analytical/conclusive portions; conviction and sentence were subject to reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation from admitting redacted SAFE report | Green: report is testimonial; unavailable declarant warrants cross-examination. | State: report not testimonial; Rollins meliorates admissibility as business record. | Yes; report statements are testimonial; remand for new trial. |
| Proper use of business-record exception for SAFE nurse report | Rollins limits admissibility when declarant unavailable; not a non-testimonial autopsy. | Unavailability does not bar business-record use; evidence fits record-keeping. | Admissibility did not avoid confrontation; not controlled by Rollins or business-record logic. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial vs non-testimonial)
- Snowden, 385 Md. 64 (Md. 2005) (whether statements to sexual-abuse investigator are testimonial)
- Rollins v. State, 392 Md. 455 (Md. 2006) (autopsy report not per se testimonial; some parts may be excluded)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; confrontation required)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic laboratory reports not admissible via surrogate testimony)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (ongoing emergency exception to testimony; context matters)