Opinion
No. 135466.
May 30, 2008.
Court of Appeals No. 280708.
Summary Disposition May 30, 2008.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of the defendant's claim that his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was violated by the trial court's admission, at the probation revocation hearing, of certain statements by out-of-court declarants. See Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 (2004). In considering this claim, the Court of Appeals shall address whether the federal circuit Court of Appeals decisions addressing this issue are correct that Crawford does not apply to probation revocation hearings. See, e.g., United States v Kelley, 446 F3d 688 (CA 7, 2006); United States v Rondeau, 430 F3d 44 (CA 1, 2005); United States v Hall, 419 F3d 980 (CA 9, 2005); United States v Kirby, 418 F3d 621 (CA 6, 2005); United States v Martin, 382 F3d 840 (CA 8, 2004); and United States v Aspinall, 389 F3d 332 (CA 2, 2004). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.