People v. Somera CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the admission of the proof of service of the domestic violence protective order without live testimony by the declarant violated the confrontation clause. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.) Defendant acknowledges that California courts have previously concluded that proofs of service may be admitted into evidence without violating the confrontation clause because they are not testimonial. (People v. Saffold (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 979 (Saffold).) However, defendant contends we should disregard Saffold as inconsistent with evolving Supreme Court precedent regarding the confrontation clause: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305 [174 L.Ed.2d 314] (Melendez-Diaz), Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) __ U.S. __ [180 L.Ed.2d 610] (Bullcoming), and Williams v. Illinois (2012) __ U.S. __ [183 L.Ed.2d 89] (Williams). We disagree with defendant and find the trial court did not err in admitting the proof of service into evidence. In Melendez-Diaz, the court held that admission of affidavits by laboratory analysts regarding examination of a controlled substance (conducted at the request of law enforcement) violated the confrontation clause because they are…