People v. Hall
84 A.D.3d 79
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- Defendant convicted of first-degree murder in New York; autopsy report unredacted was admitted, with Dr. Goldfedder testifying and relying on the autopsy records.
- OCME conducted the autopsy; Dr. Lacy performed it out of state; Goldfedder reviewed Lacy’s report and photos for causation.
- Prosecution laid foundation for admissibility as a business record; Goldfedder provided expert opinion that death resulted from a gunshot wound to the head.
- Defense argued that autopsy report’s factual portions are testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause under Melendez-Diaz.
- Court relied on Freycinet to hold factual portions of autopsy reports are non-testimonial and admissible as business records; Melendez-Diaz not controlling here.
- In-court cross-examination of Goldfedder occurred; defense exposed limits of autopsy findings and potential link between the defendant and shooter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autopsy facts testimonial under Confrontation Clause | Freycinet governs; factual autopsy portions non-testimonial | Autopsy facts are testimonial and require confrontation | Freycinet controls; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Effect of Melendez-Diaz on autopsy reports | Melendez-Diaz may apply broadly to autopsy evidence | Melendez-Diaz does not overrule Freycinet or render autopsy non-testimonial | Melendez-Diaz not controlling; Freycinet remains applicable |
| Admissibility of autopsy report as business record | Medical examiner’s office can authenticate as business record | Autopsy report still implicates confrontation concerns | Admissible as business record; cross-examined by defense |
| Use of autopsy report with in-court testimony | Live witness (Goldfedder) testifies and bases conclusions on the report | Report alone could prejudice without live testifying expert | No violation; sufficient live testimony and cross-examination |
| Harmless error given additional evidence | Autopsy report supports cause of death; other corroborating evidence exists | Any error prejudicial; strong link to defendant could be inferred | Harmless error; overwhelming evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (confrontation issue with sworn affidavits; not controlling here)
- People v. Freycinet, 11 N.Y.3d 38 (2008) (autopsy facts non-testimonial; business-records admissible)
- People v. Rawlins, 10 N.Y.3d 136 (2008) (indicia of testimoniality in evaluating reports)
- People v. Brown, 13 N.Y.3d 332 (2009) (forensic report logic; live expert testifies, not the machine data alone)
- People v. Holguin, 71 A.D.3d 504 (2010) (post-Melendez-Diaz; no reversal on autopsy issue)