People v. Fackelman, 489 Mich. 515

Defendant murdered, or engaged in a deadly confrontation, with Randy Krell following Charlie's death in a road-rage incident.
Charlie, defendant's son, died in a crash; Krell was convicted of negligent homicide (misdemeanor) and sentenced to six months in jail plus probation.
Defendant experienced mood changes after Charlie's death and received psychiatric treatment, including Prozac and Xanax.
Defendant’s insanity defense focused on whether he was legally insane at the time of the March 28, 2007 incident; two experts testified for defendant, one for the State.
The prosecution used Dr. Shahid’s hospital-visit report diagnosing no psychosis, which was not introduced as evidence and where Shahid did not testify, to influence the jury.
Convictions: guilty but mentally ill on home invasion, felonious assault with a dangerous weapon, and felony-firearm; sentencing followed; appellate proceedings culminated in reversal and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation from Shahid's report	People argues Shahid was a witness against defendant; his out-of-court diagnosis was used substantively.	Fackelman contends no confrontation violation because Shahid’s diagnosis was used indirectly and not as testimonial witness.	Violation; reversal and remand due to confrontation error.
Admissibility of Shahid's report under MRE 703 and business records	People contends report provided data for experts and was admissible.	Fackelman argues report contained testimonial diagnosis not admissible and lacked proper authentication.	Errors; improper reliance on Shahid’s diagnosis; proper redaction/authentication required.
Plain-error prejudice and outcome-determinative effect	People asserts errors were not outcome-determinative due to other evidence.	Fackelman asserts the cumulative errors biased the trial against him, justifying reversal.	Plain-error standard satisfied; reversal and remand warranted.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (medical reports created for treatment not testimonial; primary-purpose analysis)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (definitive framework for testimonial statements and confrontation)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot substitute for the actual analyst's testimony)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary-purpose/contextual test in ongoing-emergency statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (context-dependent approach to testimonial statements)
Carines v. People, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error standard for confrontation and evidentiary errors)