Carrington v. District of Columbia, 77 A.3d 999

Officers stopped Derrick Carrington after observing slow, erratic driving, rolling through a stop sign, turning into oncoming traffic, a U-turn, and hitting a curb; he appeared confused, unsteady, laughing, and could not follow directions.
Officers administered standardized field sobriety tests; Carrington failed and was arrested for DUI; breath test at station registered .000.
Urine was collected, sealed, delivered to OCME; the lab’s toxicology report showed PCP and THC.
OCME deputy chief toxicologist Lucas Zarwell (a reviewer who did not perform the tests) testified as an expert about the positive urinalysis based on lab records; defense objected under the Confrontation Clause and hearsay grounds.
Trial judge admitted Zarwell’s testimony claiming it was the expert’s opinion based on raw data (not admitted for the truth of underlying records); Carrington was convicted in a bench trial; judge said conviction was supported even without Zarwell’s testimony.
On appeal Carrington challenged the admission of Zarwell’s testimony under the Sixth Amendment and also contested a hypothetical posed to Zarwell that assumed a PCP-positive result.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Zarwell’s testimony that the urine tested positive for PCP/THC violated the Confrontation Clause	Zarwell relayed testimonial out-of-court lab results he did not perform; this was testimonial hearsay barred by Crawford/Young	Trial court allowed it as expert opinion based on raw data and admitted for non-truth purpose; bench trial judge could discount it	Court: Admission violated Confrontation Clause under Young/Williams but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed
Whether allowing an expert hypothetical that assumed a PCP-positive result (not yet ruled admissible) was improper	Hypothetical injected an evidentiary fact not in evidence and prejudiced defendant	Government: the lab result was already in evidence or under advisement so hypothetical was permissible	Court: No reversible error; if erroneous, it was harmless for same reasons as Confrontation error

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements absent confrontation)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial statements by primary purpose test)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic lab reports can be testimonial)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (plurality and fractured opinions on what is testimonial; limits on using testimonial hearsay as basis for expert opinion)
Young v. United States, 63 A.3d 1033 (D.C. 2013) (FBI lab supervisor testifying to DNA results he didn’t perform violated Confrontation Clause)
Duvall v. United States, 975 A.3d 839 (D.C. 2009) (admission of DEA reports without chemist testimony was Confrontation error)
Digsby v. United States, 981 A.2d 598 (D.C. 2009) (similar Confrontation error found harmless given other strong evidence)
Gardner v. United States, 999 A.2d 55 (D.C. 2010) (harmless-error standard under Chapman)
Karamychev v. District of Columbia, 772 A.2d 806 (D.C. 2001) (DUI can be proved circumstantially; impairment to slightest degree suffices)