As regular readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), this past June. The decision undercut the reasoning used by North Carolina courts to justify the practice of permitting substitute analysts to offer an independent opinion about the forensic report of another, nontestifying analyst (as discussed here and here). Until this week, no North Carolina court had applied Smith. The wait is now over. In State v. Clark, NCCOA-1133, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 3, 2024), the Court of Appeals delved into the impact of Smith on North Carolina law, ultimately granting the defendant a new trial for a Confrontation Clause violation. This post discusses the Clark decision and its implications for the future of substitute analysts in the state. Facts. The defendant was on probation and was required to submit to warrantless searches as one of the terms of probation. In response to a tip that the defendant was selling drugs from his home, law enforcement searched his home, finding apparent methamphetamine. The substance was sent to the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory for analysis. A forensic analyst, Ms. Fox, tested the substance and generated a report identifying the substance as meth. By the time the trial rolled around, Ms. Fox was unable to appear in court and testify to her report. The State called a substitute analyst, Mr. Cruz-Quiñones, in her place to offer his independent opinion about Ms. Fox’s forensic report. Mr. Cruz-Quiñones did not test the substance himself and was not [...]
Faculty Coordinators
