State v. Jaramillo
1 N.M. Ct. App. 365
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cristyan Ibarra died after a 2004 hospitalization; autopsy conducted in Texas by Dr. Natarajan; report prepared for litigation and homicide finding later reviewed by five Lubbock pathologists.
- Dr. Natarajan left the Lubbock office; he demanded $60,000 for testimonial services, which the State could not pay.
- The State called Dr. Parsons to establish cause and manner of death; he testified and read parts of Natarajan's autopsy report.
- Defense objected that admission of the autopsy report violated the Confrontation Clause because Natarajan could not be cross-examined.
- The district court admitted the report and Parsons testified to contents; Defendant was convicted of child abuse resulting in death and appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the autopsy report was testimonial and barred by Confrontation Clause | State contends reports are admissible under 11-703 as trusted data used by experts | Defendant argues the report is testimonial and unavailable witness cross-examination was blocked | Yes; the autopsy report was testimonial. |
| Whether Defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant | State relies on expert reliance on reports; cross-examination unnecessary | Defendant had no prior cross-examination of Natarajan or other signatories | No; Defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine. |
| Whether admission violated Rule 11-703 and Aragon framework | Admission through Parsons' testimony complies with Rule 11-703 | Aragon requires unequivocal testimony of the expert and exclusion of non-testifying data | Admission improper; Confrontation violation controls; Aragon applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. State, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (testimony via prior out-of-court forensic report is testimonial)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and testimonial purpose)
- Aragon v. State, 2010-NMSC-008 (N.M. 2010) (testimony of experts relying on non-testifying reports requires clear individual attribution)
- State v. Rivera, 2008-NMSC-056 (N.M. 2008) (Confrontation cross-examination requirement applies to testimonial statements)
- O’Kelly v. State, 94 N.M. 70 (N.M. 1980) (relevance of expert testimony and admissibility of hearsay evidence)
- State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024 (N.M. 2009) (harmful error standard in conviction analysis for improper evidence)