LawyersUSA

Introduction into evidence of a state-certified forensic drug analysis violates a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights unless the technician who prepared it testifies about its creation, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The defendant was charged with drug offenses. At trial, the state sought to introduce the state laboratory's certified analysis of the evidence obtained at the time of the defendant's arrest, which confirmed that they were illegal drugs.

The laboratory technician who performed the drug analysis and certified the results was on maternity leave and unavailable to testify. Instead, the state laboratory director testified as to the procedures the technician used to obtain and certify the laboratory results.

The defendant claimed that introducing the lab results without permitting him to cross-examine the technician who generated them violated his rights.

The state argued the document was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

The court disagreed.

"[The lab director's] testimony was not enough to satisfy [the defendant's] right of confrontation. … The nature of the testing at issue in this case is such that only [the lab technician] can testify whether she correctly followed each step in the testing process. [The defendant] is entitled to inquire about [the technician's] testing procedures, and [the director's] testimony from [the technician's] notes is insufficient," the court said.

"Here, the certificate of analysis is a testimonial statement under Crawford. … While [the lab technician] might have been unavailable to testify at trial, the Sixth Amendment requires that [the defendant] have been given an opportunity to cross-examine her prior to trial."

The court cited similar cases from Florida, Massachusetts and Missouri.

Indiana Court of Appeals. Jackson v. State, No. 27A02-0710-CR-902. August 12, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 99310560. Click here for the full text of this opinion.