State v. Kirkpatrick (2007)

App. at 501 -02 (citing State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 882 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007), overruled by State v. Jasper, 174 Wn.2d 96 , 271 P.3d 876 (2012)).

See, e.g., Salinas-Valenciano, 220 Fed.Appx. at 883 ("It is far from clear how [cross-examination] could be of practical assistance to the defense in most cases”); Kirkpatrick, 161 P.3d at 998 (stating that live testimony is not "better evidence” than a CNR); see also Weiland, supra note 13, 420 F.3d at 1077 (“[R]equiring the records custodians and other officials ... to make themselves available for cross-examination in [] countless criminal cases ... would present a seriou…

State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 882 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (“[T]he existence of an applicable hearsay exception is not dispositive as to the admissibility at trial. . . . [T]he Confrontation Clause requires another layer of analysis.”). 7 No. 81347-1-I/8 restrained party.

See Arizona v. King, 213 Ariz. 632 , 146 P.3d 1274, 1280 (Ct.App.2006) (holding that driving records were nontestimonial); see also People v. Saffold, 127 Cal.App.4th 979 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 190, 193 (2005) (concluding that proof of service of a domestic relations restraining order was nontestimonial); Colorado v. Shreck, 107 P.3d 1048, 1060-61 (Colo.Ct.App.2004) (determining that documentary evidence showing prior convictions and affidavits used to establish chain of custody f…

State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wash.2d 873 , 161 P.3d 990, 997-98 (2007).

See, e.g., United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 832 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding INS certification of nonexistence of record nontestimonial); United States v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir. 2005); State v. Kirkpatrick, 161 P.3d 990, 995 (Wash. 2007) (holding certification of the absence of a driving record nontestimonial).

See, e.g., United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 832 (9th Cir.2005) (holding INS certification of nonexistence of record nontestimonial); United States v. Rueda-Rivera, 396 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir.2005); State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wash.2d 873 , 161 P.3d 990, 995 (2007) (holding certification of the absence of a driving record nontestimonial).

VI; Brightman, 155 Wash.2d at 514 , 122 P.3d 150 . [4] Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 379 , 99 S.Ct. 2898 , 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979); Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d 51, 59-60 , 615 P.2d 440 (1980). [5] Bone-Club, 128 Wash.2d at 258-59 , 906 P.2d 325 . [6] Brightman, 155 Wash.2d at 518 , 122 P.3d 150 . [7] 141 Wash.App. 705 , 171 P.3d 1064 (2007), rev. granted, 163 Wash.2d 1012 , 180 P.3d 1291 (2008). [8] 148 Wash.App. 425, 436 , 200 P.3d 266 (2009)…

See Kirkpatrick, 160 Wash.2d at 885 , 161 P.3d 990 (although "prepared for purposes of litigation and . . . intended to be relied upon by the State," license status summaries are not testimonial).

See State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , 880- 81, 161 P.3d 990 (2007).

See State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 879-80 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007); RAP 2.5(a).

Id. at 338 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; RAP 16.4(c)(3). ¶ 46 Thus, "[i]f the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not manifest." McFarland, 127 Wash.2d at 333 , 899 P.2d 1251 ; see also State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wash.2d 873, 881 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (finding no manifest constitutional error where record was insufficient to establish actual prejudice). ¶ 47 Having determined that issue preservatio…

Id. at 338; RAP 16.4(c)(3). ¶46 Thus, “[i]f the facts necessary to adjudicate the claimed error are not in the record on appeal, no actual prejudice is shown and the error is not manifest.” McFarland, 127 Wn.2d at 333 ; see also State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 881 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (finding no manifest constitutional error where record was insufficient to establish actual prejudice). ¶47 Having determined that the issue preservation doctrine did not bar petitioners …