Summary
concluding certificate testimonial when it proves a necessary element of the offense and not required by statutory or administrative scheme, resulting in primary and sole purpose as proof of notice at trial
Summary of this case from State v. ShiversOpinion
Docket No. 144036.COA No. 302181.
2011-12-21
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Terry NUNLEY, Defendant–Appellee,andAttorney General, Intervenor.
Prior report: ––– Mich.App. ––––, ––– N.W.2d ––––.
Order
On order of the Court, the Attorney General's motion to enlarge the record on appeal is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the Department of State certificate of mailing is testimonial in nature and thus that its admission, without accompanying witness testimony, would violate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); and Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011).
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.