State v. Robles

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s manslaughter and criminal-possession-of-a-firearm convictions, concluding that the medical examiner’s testimony either did not violate confrontation rights or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It reversed the conviction for possessing a weapon in a motor vehicle because the state failed to prove that the defendant lacked a proper permit after the trial court improperly used a felony stipulation admitted only for the firearm-possession count. Justices D’Auria and Mullins, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have affirmed the weapon-in-a-vehicle conviction because the stipulation was properly considered or, alternatively, because its use constituted trial error rather than evidentiary insufficiency.