State v. Navarette
2013 NMSC 003
N.M.2013Background
- Navarette was tried for first-degree murder and aggravated battery after a shooting.
- Dr. Dudley performed the autopsy; two officers attended; the autopsy report described soot/stippling and range of fire.
- Dr. Zumwalt, not present at the autopsy, testified relying on the autopsy report to form opinions about wound causation and shooter proximity.
- Navarette objected to Dr. Zumwalt’s testimony as violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- The autopsy report itself was not admitted into evidence; the issue is whether a testifying expert can relay the out-of-court statements that formed the basis of his opinions.
- Court concludes the relevant statements were testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause standards, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the autopsy statements are testimonial under Crawford framework | Navarette argues statements are testimonial | State contends not testimonial | Yes, testimonial under Crawford principles |
| Whether a non-testifying pathologist’s statements can be conveyed through a testifying expert | Navarette asserts Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination | State argues basis evidence not offered for truth | Violated Confrontation Clause; reverse and remand |
| Whether Rule 11-703 balancing could save admissibility | Rule 11-703 balancing could permit disclosure | Confrontation Clause forecloses reliance on such balancing | Rule 11-703 analysis irrelevant under modern Confrontation Clause jurisprudence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes testimonial statements require cross-examination unless unavailable)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (distinguishes factual data and expert interpretation; notes testimony must be cross-examined)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (confrontation analysis depends on whether basis is admitted for truth or for evaluating opinion)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports as testimonial)