Motion to quash; Hearsay; MRE 803(17); People v Lemons

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that an officer’s (G) testimony identifying pills fell within MRE 803(17). Thus, it was inadmissible hearsay. And without that testimony, the prosecution did not offer “any admissible evidence identifying the pills as controlled substances.” As a result, the district court abused its discretion in binding defendant over for trial, and the circuit court erred in denying his motion to quash. During a traffic stop, G arrested defendant on an outstanding warrant. A vehicle search revealed “two pill bottles in the seatback pocket directly in front of defendant’s seat. One pill bottle was a labeled prescription belonging to” him. The other “was unlabeled and contained two clear plastic bags holding green and white pills. To identify” them, G entered the letters and numbers imprinted on the pills “into the website Drugs.com. Based on that search, he identified the green pills as alprazolam, a schedule four controlled substance, and the white pills as hydrocodone, a schedule two controlled substance.” In asserting that the testimony was admissible under MRE 803(17), “the prosecution had the burden to establish that Drugs.com is a market quotation, list, directory, or compilation, that is ‘generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.’” But it did not present evidence “to support those foundational requirements. Nor did [it] cite any authority recognizing that Drugs.com is a source that falls under the scope of MRE 803(17). The prosecution’s broad, unsupported assertion that the website is generally relied upon by the public, law enforcement, and pharmacists did not establish the applicability of the hearsay exception. Both the district and circuit courts overlooked this failure of proof.” Reversed.