California Court of Appeal

Following a jury conviction of defendant of sexual penetration of a minor, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for a new trial is reversed where: 1) Melendez-Diaz did not require exclusion of the female criminalist's report as, under Geier, if the female criminalist's report is a contemporaneous recordation of observable events, which the make criminalist testified it was, it is not testimonial and its admission does not violate defendant's right to confrontation; 2) trial court erroneously concluded that the report was not admissible under the hearsay exception it used to admit it; and 3) even if the report should have been excluded, its erroneous admission did not so prejudice defendant that he is entitled to a new trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/20/2010
• Published 08/20/2010

Judges

• RAMIREZ

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Rod Pacheco, Barbara A. Smith