Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Clark, COA23-1133, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 3, 2024)
In this Avery County case, defendant appealed his conviction for possession with intent to sell and deliver methamphetamine, arguing his Confrontation Clause rights were implicated because a testifying expert relied on another analyst’s statements in a lab report when stating his opinions. The Court of Appeals concluded it was error to allow the opinion testimony, and vacated defendant’s judgment, remanding for a new trial.
In August of 2020, defendant was searched as a condition of his probation, and officers seized a crystalline substance. The substance was tested by a forensic analyst who determined it was methamphetamine, and the analyst created a lab report for the State. When defendant came for trial, the original analyst was not available to testify, so the State offered a substitute analyst who based his opinions on the lab report. The substitute analyst did not perform any testing on the crystalline substance himself.
On appeal, defendant argued that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated because he was unable to cross-examine the original analyst whose lab report formed the foundation of the case against him. The Court of Appeals referenced the recent decision Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), where the Supreme Court held that “opinion testimony of a surrogate expert who relies upon the ‘testimonial hearsay’ statements contained in a lab report or notes prepared by another analyst who tested the substance in question implicates a defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause.” Slip Op. at 4. The court noted the applicability to the current case, as the substitute analyst relied on lab reports created solely for the trial that were testimonial in nature under State v. Craven, 367 N.C. 51 (2013). Slip Op. at 8. Because the substitute analyst did not independently test the substance and relied upon the lab report’s statements that were “hearsay and testimonial in nature,” defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause were implicated. Id. at 9.