ALEXANDER EUGENE MALASKA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Kehoe, Filed Feb. 28, 2014,
Confrontation Clause- Testimony regarding the contents of an autopsy report by the supervisor who was on-scene and ultimately responsible for the autopsy did not violate the confrontation clause- even where the doctor that actually performed the autopsy did not testify.

Notes from the case on the Confrontation Clause:
Interpreting Derr
The confrontation clause prohibits testimony or evidence where:
1) the challenged out-of-court statement or evidence is presented for its truth
2) the challenged out-of-court statement or evidence is testimonial — i.e., bears indicia of solemnity
Unless
1) the declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness at trial; and
2) the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant prior to trial.

Testimonial- “any statement that was made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial”
Testimonial- An autopsy report as required by statute for cases of violent crime is sufficiently formalized to be “testimonial”

Other notes from the case:
– Transferred Intent- Maryland does not follow the criminal act to its unintended consequences, but rather focuses on the mens rea at the time of the actus reus- even if there are ultimately unintended consequences
– Transferred Intent- Mens rea is a pervasive state of moral fault of criminal purpose that could influence any number of expected or unexpected consequences.
– Miranda- A suspect must “unambiguously” request counsel in order to invoke the right
– Miranda- “Maybe I need an attorney,” “possibly I need an attorney,” and “I’d like to make, I’ll make a statement… [but] I think I need an attorney” were insufficient to assert the claim when police asked the suspect if he wanted an attorney and the suspect stated “I don’t need an attorney yet…”