The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Michael GARCIA

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-04">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/890110865" data-vids="890110865" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">479 P.3d 905</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Michael GARCIA</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 19SC548</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">February 1, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="164" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="164" data-sentence-id="164" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Daniel H. May</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Fourth Judicial District</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Christopher Strider</span></span>, <span class="ldml-role">Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">District Attorney</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Doyle Baker</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Senior Deputy District Attorney</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="369" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="369" data-sentence-id="369" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Megan A. Ring</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Nick Rogers</span></span>, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span>, Colorado Springs, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="490" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="490" data-sentence-id="490" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="497" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (HOOD)"><span data-paragraph-id="497" data-sentence-id="497" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">HOOD</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="545" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="545" data-sentence-id="545" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_545"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Michael Garcia</span>, was convicted of violating a protection order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="545" data-sentence-id="622" class="ldml-sentence">On appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> concluded that the county <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> violated Garcia's confrontation right by admitting a notarized return of service into evidence at trial without the process server testifying.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="545" data-sentence-id="827" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that the return of service wasn't testimonial hearsay, and therefore its admission didn't violate Garcia's constitutional right to confrontation.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="545" data-sentence-id="985" class="ldml-sentence">So, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s judgment.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="1" data-types="background" data-specifier="I" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-id="heading_1030" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" id="heading_1030" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral"><span data-paragraph-id="1030" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1030" data-sentence-id="1030" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1030" data-sentence-id="1033" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1061" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1061"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Garcia had been living in his girlfriend's apartment when <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> obtained a protection order requiring him to leave.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1178" class="ldml-sentence">Her neighbor served the order on Garcia.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1219" class="ldml-sentence">Although the order instructed Garcia that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not allowed to be within 100 yards of the apartment, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="479" data-id="pagenumber_1321" data-val="907" data-rep="P.3d"></span> <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> didn't leave.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1339" class="ldml-sentence">Several hours later, the girlfriend called the police to enforce the order and remove Garcia from her apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1452" class="ldml-sentence">When the officers confronted Garcia, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> told them <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> didn't have to leave immediately.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1061" data-sentence-id="1539" class="ldml-sentence">The officers removed him.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1564" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1564" data-sentence-id="1564" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1564"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Garcia was charged with violation of a protection order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1564" data-sentence-id="1624" class="ldml-sentence">At his trial, the girlfriend and one of the responding officers testified.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1564" data-sentence-id="1699" class="ldml-sentence">The neighbor who served Garcia with the protection order didn't testify, but, over Garcia's objection, the county <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> admitted into evidence a notarized return of service allegedly signed by the neighbor.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1564" data-sentence-id="1906" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> reasoned that the return of service was nontestimonial because its primary purpose was administrative:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2018" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2018" class="ldml-sentence">The proof of service reflects the administrative status of the Protection Order and the primary function was to notify <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Garcia]</span> that this Protection Order was in place and not created simply for <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> regarding criminal conduct, but this was created before Mr. Garcia even engaged in the conduct for which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> has been charged.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="2350" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2350" data-sentence-id="2350" class="ldml-sentence">The girlfriend also testified that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> watched the neighbor serve the protection order on Garcia and that <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> and the neighbor immediately had the return of service notarized, and then the girlfriend filed it with <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2574" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2574" data-sentence-id="2574" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2574"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> The jury found Garcia guilty as charged.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2617" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2617" data-sentence-id="2617" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2617"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> On appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> reversed Garcia's conviction, concluding that admission of the return of service without testimony from the individual who served him violated Garcia's confrontation right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2617" data-sentence-id="2823" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The prosecution</span> petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> for certiorari review of that judgment, which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="2" data-types="analysis" data-specifier="II" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-id="heading_2919" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Analysis" id="heading_2919" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral"><span data-paragraph-id="2919" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="2919" data-sentence-id="2919" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2919" data-sentence-id="2923" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2931" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="2931" data-sentence-id="2932" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2932"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review de novo whether the admission of evidence violates <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s confrontation right.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2931" data-sentence-id="3031" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887081723" data-vids="887081723" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2932"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Nicholls v. People</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 71</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2932"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 17</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:396p3d675,679"><span class="ldml-cite">396 P.3d 675, 679</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2931" data-sentence-id="3089" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, our review is de novo here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3127" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3127" data-sentence-id="3127" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3127"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Under the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3127"><span class="ldml-cite">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span></a></span>, every criminal <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> has the right <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to be confronted with the witnesses against him."</span><a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3127" data-sentence-id="3281" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3127"><span class="ldml-cite">U.S. Const. amend. VI</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888619132" data-vids="888619132" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3127"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Ohio v. Clark</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. 237, 243</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2173</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">192 L.Ed.2d 306</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2015</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3384" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3384" data-sentence-id="3385" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3385"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The Supreme Court</span> has interpreted <span class="ldml-entity">this amendment</span> to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"prohibit<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> the introduction of testimonial statements by a nontestifying witness, unless the witness is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘unavailable to testify, and <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3384" data-sentence-id="3643" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888619132" data-vids="888619132" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3385"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Clark</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at 243</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2173</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888766637" data-vids="888766637" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3385"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Crawford v. Washington</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">541 U.S. 36, 54</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">124 S.Ct. 1354</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">158 L.Ed.2d 177</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span> )</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886264031" data-vids="886264031" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3385"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Fry</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">92 P.3d 970, 972</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2004</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3830" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3830" data-sentence-id="3831" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3831"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> To determine whether a statement is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"testimonial,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> analyze <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘primary purpose’</span> of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[procuring the statement]</span> was to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘creat<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[e]</span> an out-of-<span class="ldml-entity">court</span> substitute for trial testimony.’</span> "</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="3830" data-sentence-id="4084" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888619132" data-vids="888619132" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3831"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Clark</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at 245</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2173</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885357145" data-vids="885357145" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3831"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Michigan v. Bryant</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">562 U.S. 344, 358</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">131 S.Ct. 1143</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">179 L.Ed.2d 93</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4213" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="4213" data-sentence-id="4214" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4214"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> Thus, in determining a statement's primary purpose for Confrontation Clause purposes, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> examine the statement's primary purpose when it is made, not its primary purpose when it is introduced at trial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4213" data-sentence-id="4420" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895352654" data-vids="895352654" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_4517,sentence_4214"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">557 U.S. 305, 324</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">129 S.Ct. 2527</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">174 L.Ed.2d 314</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2009</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Business and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> qualify under an exception to the hearsay rules, but because—having been created for the administration of an entity's affairs and not for the purpose of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="479" data-id="pagenumber_4763" data-val="908" data-rep="P.3d"></span> establishing or proving some fact at trial—<span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are not testimonial."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4214" data-refglobal="case:peoplevortega,2016coa148"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Ortega</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">2016 COA 148</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4214"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888558579" data-vids="888558579" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_4894"><span class="ldml-cite">405 P.3d 346, 350</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that the phone records at issue were not testimonial because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> were created at or near the time the calls were made, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>ere kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[w]</span>ere made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5174" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="5174" data-sentence-id="5175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5175"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Here, the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"statement"</span> at issue is the return of service for the protection order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5174" data-sentence-id="5261" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_5277,sentence_5175"><span class="ldml-cite">CRE 801<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘statement’</span> is ... an oral or written assertion ...."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5174" data-sentence-id="5336" class="ldml-sentence">The return of service includes a signed affidavit by the person who completed service, as well as the time and date of service.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5174" data-sentence-id="5464" class="ldml-sentence">This document was offered into evidence at Garcia's trial to prove that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had received notice of the protection order and had therefore violated it by remaining in the apartment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5174" data-sentence-id="5644" class="ldml-sentence">It was admitted even though the individual who served the order didn't testify; meaning, Garcia could not cross-examine him about the order served or the service itself.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5813" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5813" data-sentence-id="5813" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5813"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> On appeal, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> concluded that the return of service was testimonial because proof of service is a necessary element of the crime of violation of a protection order.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5813" data-sentence-id="5997" class="ldml-sentence">It reasoned that the return of service document <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is testimonial hearsay because it was generated in anticipation of criminal <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> to provide proof necessary for conviction of the alleged criminal behavior to which it avers."</span><a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="6229" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6229" data-sentence-id="6229" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6229"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> But <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must consider what the primary purpose of a return of service document is at the time it is made, not when it is used at trial.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="6367" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6367" data-sentence-id="6367" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6367"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> According to <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, once <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> has issued a temporary protection order,</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_6446" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="6446" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span> copy of the complaint, a copy of the temporary civil protection order, and a copy of the citation must be served upon <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span> ....</span> <span data-sentence-id="6588" class="ldml-sentence">The citation must inform <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span> that, if <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span> fails to appear in <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> in accordance with the terms of the citation, a bench warrant may be issued for the arrest of <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span>, and the temporary protection order previously entered by <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> made permanent without further notice or service upon <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span>.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="6923" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6923" data-sentence-id="6924" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 13-14-104.5<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(9)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6923" data-sentence-id="6957" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, service of these documents provides notice to <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span> of the upcoming hearing and confers jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the respondent</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6923" data-sentence-id="7107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886926087" data-vids="886926087" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7189,sentence_6957"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Swanson v. Precision Sales & Serv., Inc.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">832 P.2d 1109, 1111</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The purpose of the requirement for serving process and a copy of the complaint upon <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> is to give that <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> notice of the commencement of the proceedings so that <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> has an opportunity to attend and to prepare a defense."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7573,sentence_6957" data-refglobal="case:compañíadeinversionesmercantiles,savgrupocementosdechihuahuasabdecv,970f3d126910thcir2020hereinaftergrupocementos"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">970 F.3d 1269, 1292</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Service of process notifies <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> of the commencement of an action against him and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘marks <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s assertion of jurisdiction over the lawsuit.’</span> "</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892637654" data-vids="892637654" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6957"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Okla. Radio Assocs. v. FDIC</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">969 F.2d 940, 943</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1992</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7807" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7807" data-sentence-id="7807" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7807"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> Moreover, when the return of service is completed, no crime related to the order served has yet occurred.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7807" data-sentence-id="7917" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7985,sentence_7807"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Espinoza</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">195 P.3d 1122, 1126–27</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The documents were not created in response to an interrogation or a request from <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> regarding criminal conduct but were created before <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> engaged in the conduct for which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was charged."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7807" data-sentence-id="8196" class="ldml-sentence">Nor is there any objective expectation that a crime—violation of the protection order—necessarily will occur.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7807" data-sentence-id="8306" class="ldml-sentence">The primary purpose of the return of service is, therefore, administrative and not prosecutorial.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8403" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8403" data-sentence-id="8403" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8403"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> The fact that it may subsequently be used to prove an element of the crime of violation of a protective order does not transform the return of service into a testimonial statement.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="8403" data-sentence-id="8588" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">id.</span></a></span></i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8403" data-sentence-id="8596" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887650914" data-vids="887650914" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_8666"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Logan v. Commonwealth</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">72 Va.App. 309</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">845 S.E.2d 228, 234</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span> record of service of process <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[is not]</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘evidence against’</span> anyone as the framers understood <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="479" data-id="pagenumber_8761" data-val="909" data-rep="P.3d"></span> the Confrontation Clause's mandate.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Simply because the return of service <i class="ldml-italics">might</i> be relevant in a future <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> does not make it testimonial."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="8403" data-sentence-id="8908" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8909" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8909" data-sentence-id="8909" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8909"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> Although <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has not previously addressed whether a return of service is testimonial, a division of our <span class="ldml-entity">court of appeals</span> has and has similarly concluded that such a statement is not testimonial.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9114" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9114" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9114"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9114"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Espinoza</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> was arrested and charged with aggravated driving after revocation prohibited.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9224" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9114"><span class="ldml-cite">195 P.3d at 1125</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9242" class="ldml-sentence">At trial, <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> introduced proof of service documents indicating that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> had been served with notice of the revocation of his driver's license at least three months before <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was arrested.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9452" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9242"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1126</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9465" class="ldml-sentence">The division concluded that the proofs of service were nontestimonial because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"reflected the administrative status of <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s driving privilege, and their primary functions were to notify him that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not permitted to drive a motor vehicle in Colorado and to record that such notice was given."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9772" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9465"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="9776" class="ldml-sentence">The division acknowledged that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>lthough an objective person who prepared such ... proof<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> of service might reasonably believe <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-entity">they</span>]</span> would be available in the event of a later traffic violation,"</span> because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the document<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> served a routine administrative function and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[were]</span> created before the charged crime occurred,"</span> their primary purpose was nontestimonial.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9114" data-sentence-id="10139" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9776"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 1127</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10151" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10151" data-sentence-id="10151" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10151"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> The <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895688420" data-vids="895688420" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10151"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Espinoza</i></span></a></span> division hardly stands alone.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10151" data-sentence-id="10198" class="ldml-sentence">An overwhelming number of jurisdictions that have addressed the same question under similar factual scenarios have reached the same conclusion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10151" data-sentence-id="10342" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">E.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10408,sentence_10198" data-refglobal="case:statevcopeland,353or816,838,838n10,306p3d6102013"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State v. Copeland</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">353 Or. 816</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">306 P.3d 610, 627</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the primary purpose for which the certificate of service in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> was created was to serve the administrative functions of <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> system,"</span> and that, although it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"was foreseeable that the certificate <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of service]</span> might be used in a later criminal <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> to furnish proof that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> had notice that the order had been entered against him<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[,]</span> ... the more immediate and predominant purpose of service was to ensure that <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> could—and would—comply with the order"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893128988" data-vids="893128988" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Fryberg</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">854 F.3d 1126, 1136</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">9th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10198" data-refglobal="case:gainesvstate,999ne2d999,1004-05indctapp2013"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Gaines v. State</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">999 N.E.2d 999, 1004–05</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Ind. Ct. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2013</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894332785" data-vids="894332785" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11109,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State v. Murphy</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">991 A.2d 35, 44</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Me.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2010</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that a certificate from the Secretary of State confirming notice of service of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s driver's license suspension was nontestimonial</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895768689" data-vids="895768689" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11330,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State v. Shivers</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">230 Ariz. 91</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">95280 P.3d 635, 639</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2012</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that a declaration of service was nontestimonial because it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"was created and filed with <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> to serve administrative purposes as required by <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> and would have been created regardless <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[of]</span> whether <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>]</span> later violated the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[protection <span class="ldml-opinionnote">order</span>]</span>"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887919811" data-vids="887919811" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11679,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Saffold</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">127 Cal.App.4th 979</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190, 193</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding the return of service was nontestimonial because the officer who served it did so <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in the routine performance of his duties"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"did not give testimony against <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>]</span> by serving the restraining order and completing the proof of service"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895247362" data-vids="895247362" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12016,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Commonwealth v. Shangkuan</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">78 Mass.App.Ct. 827</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">943 N.E.2d 466, 472</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he primary purpose for which the return of service in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> was created is to serve the routine administrative functions of <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> system ....</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">The return of service here was not created for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at a potential future criminal trial."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891915322" data-vids="891915322" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12369,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">State v. Noor</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">907 N.W.2d 646, 654–55</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Minn. Ct. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2018</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that a Certificate of Order Sent was administrative and nontestimonial</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885052643" data-vids="885052643" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12535,sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Bahena-Cardenas</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">411 F.3d 1067, 1075</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">9th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding that a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"warrant of deportation is nontestimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation, and because it is simply a routine, objective<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> cataloging of an unambiguous factual matter"</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887965124" data-vids="887965124" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10198"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">United States v. Cantellano</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">430 F.3d 1142, 1145–46</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">11th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(same)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12823" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12823" data-sentence-id="12823" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12823"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reject Garcia's contention that because the return of service contains a formal declaration, it transforms the return of service document into a testimonial statement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12823" data-sentence-id="13007" class="ldml-sentence">Although affidavits can sometimes be testimonial statements, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> must still consider <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"all of the relevant circumstances"</span> surrounding the affidavit's making before so concluding.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12823" data-sentence-id="13189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888619132" data-vids="888619132" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13007"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Clark</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">576 U.S. at 244</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">135 S.Ct. 2173</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-vol="479" data-id="pagenumber_13238" data-val="910" data-rep="P.3d"></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885357145" data-vids="885357145" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13007"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Bryant</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">562 U.S. at 369</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">131 S.Ct. 1143</span></a></span> )</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see, e.g.</i></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895352654" data-vids="895352654" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13007"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Melendez-Diaz</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">557 U.S. at 310–11</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">129 S.Ct. 2527</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12823" data-sentence-id="13347" class="ldml-sentence">Here, the primary purpose of the return document, including the affidavit, was record-keeping, not <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13458" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13458" data-sentence-id="13458" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13458"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> In sum, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> agree with the county <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> that the return of service is not a testimonial statement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13458" data-sentence-id="13560" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, the county <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> did not violate Garcia's constitutional right to confront a witness against him by admitting the return of service into evidence at trial.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_start="3" data-types="conclusion" data-specifier="III" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-id="heading_13726" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. Conclusion" id="heading_13726" data-confidences="very_high" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral"><span data-paragraph-id="13726" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="13726" data-sentence-id="13726" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13726" data-sentence-id="13731" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="13741" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13741" data-sentence-id="13741" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13741"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> reverse <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s judgment and remand with directions to return <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to the county <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> to reinstate the judgment of conviction and sentence.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="13905" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="13905" data-sentence-id="13906" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari to review the following issue:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_13958" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="13958" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred in concluding that a proof of service of a temporary civil protection order is testimonial for purposes of <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s rights to confrontation.</span></blockquote></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="14136" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="14136" data-sentence-id="14137" class="ldml-sentence">Garcia asserts his claim under both the federal and <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span> Confrontation Clauses; however, <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> has previously determined that the clauses provide equivalent protections and that the analysis under each is the same.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14136" data-sentence-id="14362" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887081723" data-vids="887081723" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14137"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Nicholls</i></span></a></span> , <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14137"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 30–33</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:396p3d675,679"><span class="ldml-cite">396 P.3d at 681–82</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14136" data-sentence-id="14408" class="ldml-sentence">Therefore, for simplicity, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discuss Garcia's confrontation right under only the federal Confrontation Clause.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="14519" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="14519" data-sentence-id="14520" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> also concluded that the return of service was admissible under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">CRE 807</span></a></span>, and that ruling is not before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>