Michael Fenner, Today's Confrontation Clause (After Crawford and Melendez-Diaz), 43 Creighton L.Rev. 35, 61 (2009) ("There are lots of business records that are specifically prepared to be used in criminal trials — to 'testify' against the accused in the event there is a criminal trial.”). 9 . Within the context of Murphy’s appeal, an expansive reading of Melendez-Diaz would precipitate a harmless error analysis. See State v. Warren, 1998 ME 136, ¶ 17, 711 A.2d 851, 857 ("When a trial error is of constitutional magnitude, the appropriate harmless error inquiry is whether, after a review of the whole record, we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”). 10 . See Arizona v. King, 213 Ariz. 632, 146 P.3d 1274, 1280 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Saffold, 127 Cal.App.4th
holding that records of a criminal defendants previous convictions in state court are nontestimonial holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial holding certificates of inspection of a breathalyzer were nontestimonial business records holding that a certified abstract of a defendants driving record was nontestimonial holding that driving records were nontestimonial