State v. Stuebe, 467 P.3d 252

Pre-dawn February 2018: motion-sensor security camera at mostly vacant commercial property recorded individuals loading copper wire into an SUV; officers stopped the SUV and found burglary tools and bags of copper wire.
Security system automatically generated and emailed a video file to the property manager; the email listed date/time and system identifiers.
Property manager testified at trial that he received the automated email and relied on it to identify the video's date/time; the State admitted the email and attached video over Stuebe's hearsay objection.
The superior court admitted the evidence relying on Rule 801(d)(2)(D) (statements by an opposing party's agent), a ground the State concedes was legally incorrect.
On appeal the court held the email and video were not hearsay because they were machine-produced (not statements by a person) and were non‑testimonial, so the Confrontation Clause was not implicated; convictions and sentences were affirmed, but DNA-costs and certain assessment fees were vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the automated email and attached video are hearsay	The property manager had personal knowledge and his testimony authenticated the contents; evidence admissible	The email and video are out-of-court statements offered for truth and thus hearsay	Not hearsay: machine-produced items are not "statements" by a "person" under Ariz. R. Evid. 801
Whether admission violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Email/video were admissible and non-testimonial; property manager testified and was cross-examined	Admission deprived Stuebe of right to confront declarant(s)	No violation: automated email/video were not testimonial and manager was available for cross-examination
Whether misapplication of Rule 801(d)(2)(D) or admission requires reversal	Admission was proper on an alternative ground; error harmless	Court misapplied rule and should have excluded evidence	Affirmed: appellate court may uphold evidence on any correct legal basis; admission sustained
Sentencing: validity of DNA-costs and assessment fees imposed	State sought costs and fees as ordered	Stuebe challenged some fees/costs as improper	Affirmed convictions and sentences but vacated DNA testing costs and assessment fees on count two

United States v. Lizarraga-Tirado, 789 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2015) (machine-generated content is not hearsay)
United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007) (raw machine data are not statements of technicians)
United States v. Khorozian, 333 F.3d 498 (3d Cir. 2003) (automatically generated fax headers not hearsay)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements implicate Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)
Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (U.S. 2015) (statements to non-law-enforcement are less likely testimonial)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports prepared for prosecution are testimonial)
State v. Gomez, 226 Ariz. 165 (Ariz. 2010) (Arizona courts have assumed, without deciding, machine-generated material may be hearsay)
State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (Ariz. 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation Clause)