Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Issues
During a trial, when the prosecution introduces a forensic laboratory report, does it satisfy the Confrontation Clause if a laboratory analyst who did not perform the analysis testifies and is cross-examined by the defendant, or must the analyst who prepared the report take the stand?
Following an arrest for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Petitioner Donald Bullcoming’s blood was tested at the New Mexico Department of Health in order to determine his blood alcohol content (BAC). At trial, the laboratory’s report was admitted into evidence even though the actual analyst who performed the test was not a witness. Instead, another analyst from the Department of Health testified to the laboratory’s procedures and the machinery used to conduct the BAC test. On appeal, Bullcoming argues that the information in the report was testimonial and that, because the actual analyst was not a witness subject to cross-examination, his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated. Respondent New Mexico contends that the report is not testimonial because the testing analyst merely transcribed raw data and that, even if it is testimonial, Bullcoming’s confrontation rights were satisfied by the opportunity to retest the sample and cross-examine another analyst. To decide this case, the Supreme Court must balance a defendant’s right to confrontation against the burden that requiring the actual analyst to testify imposes on the state.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
A jury convicted Petitioner Donald Bullcoming of aggravated Driving While Intoxicated (DWI); he was sentenced to two years in prison. See New Mexico v. Bullcoming, 226 P.3d 1, 4–5 (N.M.