Summary
In People v Childs, 491 Mich 906; 810 NW2d 563 (2012), the Court vacated the part of this Court's opinion holding that admission of an autopsy report did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation because the Court concluded that the autopsy report was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Summary of this case from People v. HollinsOpinion
Docket No. 144169.COA No. 297692.
2012-04-18
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Michael Eugene CHILDS, Defendant–Appellant.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2011 WL 4862442.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. With regard to the defendant's Issue I, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of Appeals, but VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the autopsy report was not testimonial and, therefore, that its admission did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. In particular, we disagree with the Court of Appeals reliance on MRE 803(8) and its determination that the autopsy report was not prepared in anticipation of litigation, see Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011). Nonetheless, we agree that the defendant is not entitled to relief. Defense counsel stipulated to the admission of the autopsy report. Even assuming, arguendo, that there is merit in the defendant's claim that his counsel was ineffective in this regard, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the admission of the report was not outcome determinative. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.