People v. Nunley
294 Mich. App. 274
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- In a DWLS case, the prosecutor sought to admit a Secretary of State certificate of mailing as proof of notice of suspension.
- The district court ruled the certificate is a testimonial document that requires witness testimony under the Confrontation Clause.
- The circuit court initially held signature not required to admit the certificate but affirmed that without the author’s testimony the Confrontation Clause would be violated.
- The court framed Melendez-Diaz as controlling, holding the certificate of mailing to be testimonial because it proves a statutory notice element of the offense.
- The proceedings addressed whether the certificate is analogous to a lab certificate (testimonial) or a clerical/business record (potentially non-testimonial).
- The decision relied on Bullcoming to confirm that a surrogate witness cannot substitute for the author of a testimonial certificate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certificate of mailing is testimonial | Prosecution: not testimonial; not a live witness but a notice document. | Nunley: the certificate is testimonial and requires the author’s live testimony. | Yes; the certificate of mailing is testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. |
| If testimonial, may it be admitted without witness testimony | Prosecution: admissible as a non-testimonial public record or due to statutory notice requirements. | Nunley: admission without the author would violate confrontation rights. | Admission without testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause; denial of the motion in limine affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial and require confrontation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (core rule: no confrontation absent witness availability and prior cross-examination)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (context determines whether statements are testimonial; presence of ongoing emergency matters)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot substitute for the author of a testimonial certificate)
- Lonsby v. Michigan, 268 Mich. App. 375 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (autopsy/report context and cross-examination considerations in testimonial analysis)
- Lewis (On Remand), 287 Mich. App. 356 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishes statutorily required reports from trial-specific forensic certificates under Confrontation Clause)