People v. Leach, 2012 IL 111534

Leach was convicted of first-degree murder (knowing murder) in a bench trial and sentenced to 28 years; the appellate court affirmed, and this court granted leave to consider Crawford-related issues.
Defendant admitted choking his wife Latyonia Cook-Leach but claimed the death was an accident; the State introduced an autopsy report by Dr. Choi and testimony by Dr. Arangelovich who reviewed the autopsy.
Defense moved in limine to bar testimony by pathologists other than Dr. Choi and to admit the autopsy report; the court denied the motion.
Dr. Choi conducted the autopsy; arrestee’s blood alcohol was 0.015 and tox negative for cocaine/heroin; Dr. Arangelovich testified that the manner of death was homicide by strangulation.
The autopsy report (State’s exhibit 39) and photographs were admitted; Dr. Arangelovich testified to her opinion that strangulation caused death; defense argued lack of foundation and that Arangelovich merely echoed Choi.
The majority held the autopsy report and Arangelovich’s testimony were admissible and not testimonial; the dissent argued the opposite and would reverse or remand for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Arangelovich’s recounting of autopsy findings violated the confrontation clause.	People argued Arangelovich’s testimony explained the autopsy findings and was permissible.	Leach argued recounting the autopsy findings was testimonial hearsay requiring cross-examination of Choi.	No reversible error; testimony not testimonial under Williams/Davis framework.
Whether the autopsy report itself was testimonial and violated confrontation.	People contended the report fell within hearsay exceptions and not testimonial.	Leach argued the autopsy report was testimonial and should have been cross-examined.	Autopsy report admitted under non-testimonial basis; not reversible error.
Whether the evidence proves knowing murder beyond a reasonable doubt.	People argued expert testimony and defendant’s statements show knowledge of deadly risk.	Leach contends insufficient proof of knowing murder beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient evidence supported knowing murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose test; ongoing emergency analysis)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic lab reports are testimonial; must confront analysts)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report admissibility; need to confront actual analyst)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (primary purpose test for forensic reports; distinguish from Williams facts)