People v. Dungo
55 Cal. 4th 608
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant killed Pina; autopsy conducted by Bolduc did not call him as witness.
- Prosecution substituted Lawrence as pathologist, basing opinions on Bolduc’s autopsy report and photos not admitted into evidence.
- Defense cross-examined Lawrence about Bolduc’s qualifications but not Bolduc’s autopsy conclusions.
- Court of Appeal held Lawrence’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause by relying on Bolduc’s out-of-court observations.
- Majority reverses appellate ruling, holding Bolduc’s observations were not testimonial and not subject to confrontation; autopsy report itself not admitted; decision aligns with Williams line of cases.
- This case, Lopez, and Rutterschmidt are part of a quartet addressing the scope of the Sixth Amendment confrontation right in forensic testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lawrence’s testimony violated confrontation by recounting Bolduc’s observations | Prosecution argues Bolduc’s observations were testimonial | Dungo argues use of Bolduc’s observations violated Confrontation Clause | No violation; observations were not testimonial |
| Whether Bolduc’s autopsy observations are testimonial under Crawford-era tests | Observations were obtained through formal autopsy process and used to prove death cause | Observations were informal and multiple purposes beyond prosecution | Not testimonial; primary purpose not to accuse a targeted individual; autopsy observations not admitted into evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established core Confrontation Clause testimonial concept)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (unsworn lab reports treated as testimonial when formalized in a report)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2012) (primary purpose test; autopsy/DNA evidence not necessarily testimonial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (formal vs. informal statements; interrogation context matters)
- Bryant v. Bryant, 563 U.S. 1120 (U.S. 2011) (emergency context; primary purpose analysis conducted)
- People v. Lopez, 55 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2012) (California high court companion case; confrontation issues in forensic testimony)
- People v. Rutterschmidt, 55 Cal.4th 650 (Cal. 2012) (California high court companion case; confrontation issues in forensics)