|
No. 134206
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Joshua D. Abbott |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Macomb - Druzinski, D.) |
|
|
| Geracer Raphael Taylor, |
|
Lawrence S. Katz |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Richard D. Friedman, Counsel of Record Pro Se's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Buel Lasater was shot four times while in bed early in the morning; the shots came from outside the bedroom window. When the police arrived, they asked Lasater, who was bleeding profusely from his wounds, to identify his assailant. When Lasater seemed reluctant, the officers told him that he “might not make it.” Lasater then identified Geracer Taylor as the shooter, using Taylor’s nickname. Lasater had been involved in a fight with Taylor earlier that night. Minutes later, as Lasater was being treated by emergency medical personnel, another police officer told Lasater that he might not live much longer and asked him to identify his attacker. Lasater again identified Taylor as the shooter. Lasater then went into an induced coma; he died a few weeks later. Taylor was charged with and convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Taylor appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing Lasater’s statements into evidence. Taylor relied on Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 (2004), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause excludes otherwise admissible evidence in criminal cases if 1) the statement at issue is “testimonial” in nature, 2) the person who made the statement is unavailable, and 3) the defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross-examine the person regarding the statement. The Court of Appeals rejected Taylor’s Crawford argument and affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a published opinion. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Lasater’s statements to the police were not “testimonial” under Crawford.Even if Lasater’s statements were testimonial, the Court of Appeals said, they were admissible as “dying declarations.” Historically, a “dying declaration” has been treated as an exception to the Confrontation Clause, the appellate court noted. Taylor appeals.
Top of Page
|
