State of Iowa v. Brian M. Kennedy, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 51

On Nov. 30, 2010 police stopped Brian M. Kennedy, knowing his license had been previously revoked; he was charged with driving under revocation (Iowa Code §321J.21).
At trial the State introduced a 15‑page exhibit titled "Certified Abstract of Driving Record": first 2 pages = certified abstract of IDOT driving record; last 13 pages = three affidavits of mailing each with attached revocation notice and USPS bulk‑mail certificates.
Defense moved in limine to exclude the exhibit under the Confrontation Clauses (U.S. and Iowa); the district court admitted it and found Kennedy guilty after a bench trial.
On appeal the court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review to decide Confrontation Clause issues.
Court divided analysis: (1) whether the certified abstract (2 pages) is testimonial; (2) whether the affidavits of mailing (13 pages) are testimonial and thus barred unless declarant testifies or was cross‑examined.
Court held the certified abstract is non‑testimonial (admissible); the affidavits of mailing were testimonial and inadmissible, but their admission was harmless error because the admissible abstract contained the same effective‑date information needed to prove revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kennedy)	Held
Admissibility of certified abstract of driving record	Abstract is an official public record and non‑testimonial; admissible without custodian testimony	Abstract is testimonial and admission violated Confrontation Clause	Certified abstract is non‑testimonial and admissible
Admissibility of affidavits of mailing (certificates)	Affidavits authenticate mailing and are routine records; admissible	Affidavits are testimonial affidavits prepared for trial and violate Confrontation Clause	Affidavits are testimonial and inadmissible
Whether defendant preserved Confrontation objection to affidavits	(implicit) objection insufficient	Trial counsel explicitly objected to the last 13 pages as not part of an abstract	Kennedy preserved error on affidavits of mailing
Effect of erroneous admission (harmless‑error)	Any error was harmless because certified abstract alone proved revocation dates	Admission may have affected finder of fact; requires reversal	Admission of affidavits was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause protects against testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent declarant cross‑examination)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates can be testimonial affidavits requiring confronting witness)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (report is testimonial; surrogate testimony by an analyst who did not perform the test is insufficient)
State v. Shipley, 757 N.W.2d 228 (Iowa 2008) (certified abstracts of driving records are non‑testimonial and admissible)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑error standard for federal constitutional errors)
Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391 (1991) (framework for harmless‑error review examining what the factfinder actually considered)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (limitations on harmless‑error review and reliance on actual verdict foundations)
People v. Nunley, 821 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. 2012) (certificate of mailing kept contemporaneously as business record is non‑testimonial)
Commonwealth v. Parenteau, 948 N.E.2d 883 (Mass. 2011) (certificate of mailing prepared after charges for trial is testimonial and inadmissible)