Background

• Burch was arrested after a Dallas officer observed him with drugs and paraphernalia and he was indicted for possession with intent to deliver cocaine.
• At trial, the State offered a one-page lab report identifying cocaine; the report was signed by the testing analyst Pinckard and the reviewer Lopez.
• The State called Lopez to testify, but Pinckard did not testify; Lopez testified she supervised SWIFS and double-checked procedures, without indicating she observed the tests.
• The defense objected that admitting the report and Lopez's testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
• The trial court admitted the report and Lopez’s testimony; the Fifth Court of Appeals reversed, holding the error not harmless and remanding for a new trial because there was no other admissible evidence of identity and weight.
• The Court granted discretionary review to determine whether the Confrontation Clause was violated by admitting a testimonial drug analysis via a surrogate witness.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony cannot substitute for the testing analyst when the report is testimonial)
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (analyst's certification is testimonial and subject to Confrontation Clause)
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements require direct confrontation or prior opportunity to cross-examine)
• Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (plurality on DNA evidence; issues about whether report is testimonial depend on context)
• Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (face-to-face confrontation fundamental to cross-examination requirement)
• Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (Confrontation Clause limits not to be overridden by policy arguments)
• Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (when a fragmented Court decides a case on narrow grounds, holding follows the narrowest rationale)