finding that an autopsy report is non-testimonial in nature and, classified as a business record, it “bear[s] the earmark of reliability and probability or trustworthiness”
How later courts described this case
- finding that an autopsy report is non-testimonial in nature and, classified as a business record, it “bear[s] the earmark of reliability and probability or trustworthiness”
- applying Roberts and concluding that an autopsy report was admissible under the business records exception and, as within a firmly rooted exception, satisfied the Confrontation Clause
- noting that business records "bear the earmark of reliability or probability of trustworthiness," which "satisfies the core value of the Confrontation Clause"
- finding an autopsy report not to be testimonial, as it had been made in the ordinary course of business
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
I concur fully in Parts I and III of the majority's opinion. I concur in the result in Part II of the opinion because I agree that any error in the admission of the autopsy report was harmless. See my writing in Smith v. State , [Ms. CR-02-1218, April 30, 2004] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2004). *Page 1011