Bullcoming v. New Mexico
564 U.S. 647
SCOTUS2011Background
- Bullcoming was arrested for DWI after a BAC test showed 0.21 g/dL.
- The blood sample was analyzed by the New Mexico SLD; Curtis Caylor certified the BAC result.
- The State did not call Caylor at trial; instead Razatos testified about lab procedures but not about Bullcoming’s test.
- New Mexico Supreme Court held the blood-alcohol report was testimonial but allowed it in through surrogate testimony because Razatos could testify.
- The Court granted certiorari to decide if Confrontation Clause permits using a testimonial lab report via an in-court surrogate witness; majority held it does not.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion; this ruling overruled the NM Supreme Court on this point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether surrogate testimony can satisfy the Confrontation Clause | Bullcoming: surrogate testimony insufficient | State: surrogate testimony ok if admissible under law | No; cannot satisfy confrontation requirement |
| Whether the BAC report is testimonial under Crawford/Melendez-Diaz | Bullcoming: report is testimonial | State: report not subject to Confrontation Clause | Yes, the BAC report is testimonial |
| If testimonial, can it be admitted via live testimony from a different analyst | Bullcoming: cross-examination would be possible | State: surrogate testimony suffices | No; cannot admit through surrogate witness |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and subject to Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (established confrontation right excludes absent witnesses’ testimonial statements unless unavailable and cross-examined)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (confrontation hinges on testimonial character; inability to cross-examine safeguards)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (primary purpose and reliability considerations in testimonial determinations)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation Clause applicability in presence of unavailable witnesses)
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) ( Sixth Amendment right to counsel; substitution does not cure violation)