People v. Nunley
491 Mich. 686
| Mich. | 2012Background
- Michigan Supreme Court case on admissibility of a DOS certificate of mailing to prove notice in DWLS second offense.
- Order of Action revoked Nunley’s license; certificate of mailing dated 6-22-09 accompanied the notice mailed to Nunley.
- Certificate of mailing lists numerous recipients and is created before any crime, documenting notice as a statutorily mandated administrative task.
- Lower courts held the certificate testimonial and violative of Confrontation Clause if admitted without witness testimony; the Court granted leave to address the issue.
- Court concludes the certificate is not testimonial and may be admitted without accompanying witness testimony; remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the certificate of mailing testimonial under Crawford/Melendez-Diaz? | Certificate is testimonial to prove a notice element. | Certificate is a routine administrative record, not testimonial. | Not testimonial; admission allowed without witness |
| Do the circumstances of creation indicate a prosecutorial purpose? | Created to prove notice for DWLS; anticipates use at trial. | Created for litigation-like purpose; substantially a prosecutorial artifact. | Administrative function; not created for trial use |
| Should Michigan follow Melendez-Diaz/Murphy/Parenteau in this context? | Authorities show certificates of mailing are testimonial. | Other states support non-testimonial business-record view. | Supports non-testimonial conclusion; defer to Murphy/Parenteau alignment |
| What is the effect of this ruling on the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand? | Court of Appeals erred by deeming testimonial | Ruling should align with Crawford-era framework | Reverse; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial when used for trial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (statements during police interrogation can be non-testimonial in emergencies)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony not allowed for testimonial reports)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (DNA report not necessarily testimonial; focus on purpose and formality)
- Fackelman v. Michigan, 489 Mich. 515, 802 N.W.2d 552 (2011) (state Supreme Court on Confrontation Clause as applied to expert/medical records)
- Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 460 Mass. 1, 948 N.E.2d 883 (2011) (certificates mailings may be non-testimonial if created in ordinary course)
- State v. Murphy, 2010 ME 28, 991 A.2d 35 (Me 2010) (certificate-notice systems can be non-testimonial)
- Cantellano v. United States, 430 F.3d 1145 (11th Cir. 2005) (analogous federal treatment of routine official records)