State v. Tate: DNA Analysis, the Confrontation Clause, and Testimonial Hearsay

My colleague Joe Hyde blogged last week about the Court of Appeals’ determination in State v. Tate, __ N.C. App. ___ (June 18, 2025), that the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. I’m returning to Tate this week to discuss another aspect of the Court’s holding, namely its determination that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were not violated when an expert from the State Crime Lab testified to an opinion that was based in part on DNA test results generated by private third-party laboratory. This post will unpack the court’s analysis of that issue and will consider what it might mean for testimony by substitute analysts more generally. Facts. The defendant in Tate was indicted in 2021 for an alleged rape that occurred in Greenville, North Carolina, ten years earlier, on June 1, 2011. That day, the victim drank heavily at an apartment pool, where she encountered three men. She was later taken by car to an apartment complex. The victim next remembered awakening in a bed with a man having vaginal sex with her. Another man was called into the room and she was “motioned” to perform oral sex on that man. As a third man came into the room, the victim began regaining awareness. After the men left the apartment, the victim also fled to seek help. She was taken to the hospital where a nurse gathered samples and evidence, which the nurse packaged in [...]