People v. Diggins, 2016 IL App (1st) 142088 (May). Episode 182 (Duration 5:14)

Is an Illinois State Police certified letter saying Defendant has no FOID testimonial in nature?

Facts

Defendant was convicted of AUUW.

The State admitted a “certified letter” from the Firearm Service Bureau of the Illinois State Police, which stated defendant was denied an FOID because he had a pending felony charge.

The State argued it was a self-authenticating document because it was “a certified document with a seal bearing the signature and seal of the office.”

Defense counsel objected, stating that this was not a document kept in the normal course of business, and rather it was the result of a specific request by the State. The trial denied the objection because “the document speaks to a review of documents kept in the normal course of business” and it was certified document of a governmental agency.

Law

“Testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial have been admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004).

In regards to what is a testimonial statement the Court said:

“Various formulations of this core class of testimonial statements exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent – that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially,  extrajudicial statements … contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions, [citation] statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52.

Holding

However, this certificate was clearly testimonial in nature.

It was made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.

Thus, absent a showing that the witness was unavailable to testify at trial and that defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him, defendant was entitled to be confronted with the witness at trial.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.