Admission of National Precursor Log Exchange (NPLEx) records; Right of confrontation; People v. Walker (On Remand); Whether the records were testimonial statements; People v. Clark; Williams v. Illinois; Case law ruling that a document prepared by a non-testifying expert violated the Confrontation Clause; Bullcoming v. New Mexico; Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts; People v. Fackelman; Business records hearsay exception; MRE 803(6); United States v. Collins; Sufficiency of the evidence for an assault with a dangerous weapon conviction; People v. Bosca; “Assault”; People v. Meissner; Lack of actual touching; People v. Carlson; Extraneous influence on the jury; People v. Budzyn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Trakhtenberg; Failure to advance a meritless position; People v. Ericksen; Jury instruction that witnesses (including police officers) cannot lie while testifying; Viewing instructions as a whole; People v. Hartuniewicz

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate defendant’s right of confrontation by admitting NPLEx records, and that there was sufficient evidence to support his assault with a dangerous weapon conviction. In addition, it found no evidence that the jury was exposed to an extraneous influence in the form of information about his incarceration, that “the trial court did not misinform the jury,” and that its instructions adequately protected his rights. His ineffective assistance of counsel claim also failed. He was convicted of manufacturing meth, operating or maintaining a meth lab, tampering with evidence, obtaining pseudoephedrine to make meth, assault with a dangerous weapon, and resisting arrest. In support of his claim “that the NPLEx records were inadmissible because they were testimonial statements[,]” defendant relied on Bullcoming, Melendez-Diaz, and Fackelman. But the reports at issue in those cases “were each generated after a defendant was charged with a crime and pursuant to a police investigation or a request by lawyers. By contrast, the data compilation and reporting procedures” a police witness (D) described here “are required for every purchase of pseudoephedrine products within the state and regardless of whether the log is ever used for litigation. Unlike the reports at issue in Bullcoming, Melendez-Diaz, and Fackelman, the NPLEx purchase logs responded to state mandates, were being kept before defendant was suspected and accused of the instant crimes, and recorded any purchase of pseudoephedrine, not just those made by defendant. The possibility that the NPLEx records could be used as evidence against a defendant in criminal prosecution does not mean that they were specifically or primarily prepared for such use.” Thus, they were not testimonial and there was no Confrontation Clause violation. To the extent defendant argued D “was not a proper witness to introduce the records because he did not create them, MRE 803(6) does not require the witness introducing the records to have created them, only that the records themselves were made by, or with information from, a person with knowledge.” As to his assault conviction, he admitted “he commanded his dog to attack the officers” and D testified “he was afraid the dog was going to try and bite them.” It was legally irrelevant that the dog did not make contact. Affirmed.