State v. Jasper
271 P.3d 876
Wash.2012Background
- Consolidated Washington cases ask whether DOL driving-record certifications are testimonial and subject to confrontation.
- Jasper was convicted of felony hit-and-run and third-degree DWLS; an official DOL records custodian affidavit about license status was admitted at trial.
- Cienfuegos was charged with first-degree DWLS; a certified driving-record cover letter and three CCDR exhibits were admitted, with objections under confrontation.
- Moimoi was charged with unregistered contracting; a certification from DLI verifying nonregistration was admitted; Jackson testified but did not reveal search results.
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (posture) held such certifications are testimonial; Washington overruled Kirkpatrick and Kronich to the extent inconsistent with Melendez-Diaz.
- The Court reverses some convictions and remands for new trials, holding the certifications were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt except for Jasper’s hit-and-run conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are driving-record certifications testimonial under the Confrontation Clause? | Jasper/Cienfuegos/Moimoi rely on Kirkpatrick/Kronich to allow non-testimonial status. | The state relies on Melendez-Diaz and later cases to treat as non-testimonial. | Certifications are testimonial; overrule Kirkpatrick and Kronich. |
| Was the admission of the certifications harmless error? | Error not harmless given key reliance on certification for guilt. | Other evidence could sustain convictions; some errors harmless. | Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for Jasper (DWLS); not harmless for Cienfuegos and Moimoi; retrial/remand required. |
| Remedy for confrontation-clause violation by admission of certifications | Evidence improperly admitted undermines integrity of trials. | Dismissal or other remedies could be appropriate depending on impact. | Remand for new trials; retrial appropriate rather than dismissal except as noted. |
| Did Jasper’s jury-deliberation questions issue require presence of counsel and defendant? | Confrontation and CrR 6.15(f)(2) concerns may attach; error if not consulted. | No interference or harmless as issues were law questions. | Court declines to decide merits; Jasper granted no relief on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates testing substance are testimonial; confrontation required)
- Kirkpatrick, 160 Wash.2d 873 (2007) (DOL certifications not testimonial under Crawford (revised post-Melendez-Diaz))
- Kronich, 160 Wash.2d 893 (2007) (driving-status certificates not testimonial under Crawford (overruled by Melendez-Diaz))
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (foundation for testimonial status; live testimony requirement)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (2011) (confirms focus on testimonial nature of certifications; cross-examination needed)
- United States v. Norwood, 130 S. Ct. 491 (2010) (remand for consideration in light of Melendez-Diaz)
- Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581 (2010) (overruled Rueda-Rivera; certificate regarding nonexistence of records is testimonial)