JAMIE TURNER V. COM
CRIMINAL: Nontestifying informants recorded statements not violate right of confrontation
OPINION BY ABRAMSON
DATE RENDERED: 3/20/2008
Commonwealth’s introduction of recorded drug transactions did not violate Turner’s right to confrontation. To the extent that the non-testifying informant’s statements and remarks on the audio recordings of Turner’s drug sales provided context for Turner’s portions of the conversations, the admission into evidence of the informant’s portions did not run afoul of Turner’s confrontation right. Following two federal circuits, SC held that although the statements may be testimonial, they are not hearsay, and therefore, do not violate Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Even if the admission of the methadone possession statement was erroneous, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Digested by Scott C. Byrd