Cited by

7 STATE v. GUEVARA-ENRIQUEZ Opinion of the Court whether the admission of evidence violates the Confrontation Clause.”

See Enmund, 458 U.S. at 797; ¶ 17 (2012) (“A defendant convicted of felony murder may receive a death sentence regardless of his intent if he actually kills a victim during the course of a felony .

eld that “a testifying medical examiner may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in autopsy reports prepared by others as long as he 7 STATE v. KAVU Decision of the Court forms his own conclusions.” ¶ 36 (2011); ¶ 8 (2012) (“[A] testifying medical examiner may offer an opinion based on an autopsy performed by a non- testifying expert without violating the Confrontation Clause.”); ¶ 23 (2007) (“Expert testimony that discusses reports and opinions of another is admissible

¶¶ 8–9, ¶ 23, (“Expert testimony that discusses reports and opinions of another is admissible .

at 2227, 2236 (no Confrontation Clause violation where testifying analyst relies upon DNA profile generated by third-party of which she lacked personal knowledge of testing procedures to conclude profile matched defendant); ¶¶ 8, 10 , ¶¶ 22-23 , -68 (2010).

¶¶ 20-21, (reiterating the Hausner requirements for a defendant’s waiver of the right to present mitigation evidence: that the defendant “(1) understands what mitigation is, the right to present mitigation evidence, and the consequences of waiving that right, and (2) makes the decision

–01 72 STATE V. GOUDEAU Opinion of the Court ¶¶ 22–24, –32 (2012) (concluding that trial court’s explanation of mitigation and penalty phase, coupled with defendant’s statements, demonstrated that he vo

¶25 Our supreme court has repeatedly held that “a testifying medical examiner may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in autopsy reports prepared by others as long as he forms his own conclusions.” Dixon, 226 Ariz. at 553, ¶ 36; ¶ 8 (2012) (“[A] testifying medical examiner may offer an opinion based on an autopsy performed by a non-testifying expert without violating the Confrontation Clause.”); ¶ 23 (2007) (“Expert testimony that discusses reports and opinions of anot

This is because “the facts underlying an expert's opinion are admissible only to show the basis of that opinion and not to prove their truth[.]” ¶ 8 (2012).

at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 2228; (“a testifying medical examiner may offer an opinion based on an autopsy performed by a non-testifying expert without violating the Confrontation Clause” where report not admitted into evidence and testifying expert reaches independent conclusions).

We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion, ¶ 20, but “review de novo whether the admission of evidence violates the Confrontation Clause,” ¶ 7

KARP/VORIS Opinion of the Court ¶4 P.3d 27 (2012), no Confrontation Clause violation occurs when an expert renders an independent opinion based on testimonial or non-testimonial facts and data, which was the situation here.

“We review de novo whether the admission of evidence violates the Confrontation Clause.” cert.

denied, 132 S. Ct. 456 (2011) (“Our cases teach that a testifying medical examiner may, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, rely on information in autopsy reports prepared by others as long as he forms his own conclusions.”); ¶ 11, cert.

¶ 18, (failure to instruct on Enmund/Tison was not an abuse of discretion where defendant was sole participant in murder).6 4.