In the latest application of a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court Confrontation Clause landmark ruling, New York’s Court of Appeals on Tuesday unanimously held that a trial court erred when it permitted a Department of Motor Vehicles employee to submit an affidavit suggesting that a defendant knew or should have known he was driving with a revoked license. Such knowledge is an element to the felony charge of aggravated unlicensed operation, on which the defendant was convicted.

The state judges found that, under Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, Stephen M. Pacer’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the admission into evidence of the affidavit. They rejected a prosecution claim that such a document is more akin to a business record than a testimonial statement. People v. Stephen M. Pacer, 45.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]