PEOPLE OF MI V DANTE BIANCO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 1, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 267729
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 05-008973-01
DANTE BIANCO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of assault with intent to do great bodily
harm less than murder, MCL 750.84, and was sentenced to three years’ probation. He appeals as
of right. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Defendant first argues that he did not properly waive his right to a jury trial because there
was no on-the-record waiver in open court, contrary to MCR 6.402(B). We disagree. The record
of the proceedings on November 29, 2005, clearly shows that the trial court complied with MCR
6.402(B) and accepted defendant’s waiver only after ascertaining that defendant understood his
right to a jury trial and voluntarily chose to be tried by the court.
Defendant next argues that the victim’s statement to a police officer, identifying
defendant as her assailant, was testimonial and therefore violated Crawford v Washington, 541
US 36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004).1 We disagree.
In Crawford, the Supreme Court observed that while not all hearsay evidence is subject
to the Confrontation Clause, the Sixth Amendment bars the admission of statements that are
testimonial, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination. Id. at 51, 68. More recently, in Davis v Washington, ___ US ___; 126 S Ct 2266,
2273-2274; 165 L Ed 2d 224 (2006), the Supreme Court explained the difference between
testimonial and nontestimonial statements under Crawford:
1
Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s determination that the statement qualified as an
excited utterance under MRE 803(2).
-1-
Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police
interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose
of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no
such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to
establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
[Footnote omitted.]
See also People v Alvin C Walker, Jr, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 250006,
issued November 21, 2006), slip op at 2-3.
In this case, the victim’s statement was made just after the responding officer arrived at
the scene and there was still an ongoing emergency situation. Under the circumstances, the
statement was nontestimonial in nature and, therefore, was admissible without violating
defendant’s right of confrontation. The trial court properly ruled that the statement was
admissible under Crawford.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
