Com. v. Bedoya, J., Com. v. Bedoya, J. No. 2328 EDA 2016

On June 23, 2013 Jonathan Bedoya drove erratically, left the roadway, and crashed down an embankment; an eyewitness observed the unsafe driving and the crash.
Police found Bedoya incoherent at the scene, next to empty packets of synthetic marijuana and hollowed cigars; he admitted a problem with synthetic marijuana and his brother said they had been smoking it.
A state trooper/drug recognition expert performed standardized field tests and observed multiple signs of drug impairment; he opined Bedoya was impaired by cannabinoids.
Bedoya’s blood was tested by NMS Laboratory; an automatically generated, unsigned toxicology report listed XLR-11 (a synthetic cannabinoid).
Dr. Wendy Adams (assistant lab director) reviewed raw data and quality checks, testified as an expert that Bedoya’s blood contained XLR-11, but did not perform or sign the original test report.
Bedoya was convicted of DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)(2)) and careless driving; he appealed, arguing a Confrontation Clause violation from admission of the unsigned report/expert testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Bedoya)	Held
Confrontation Clause: admissibility of unsigned lab report and Dr. Adams’ testimony	Dr. Adams’ testimony was admissible as an expert’s independent opinion based on her review; any Confrontation problem was harmless given other evidence and limiting instruction	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because Dr. Adams did not perform, certify, or author the test report and the preparer was not available for cross-examination	Assuming a Confrontation error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent evidence of impairment and the jury instruction limiting the report’s use
Weight of the evidence: whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence	Evidence (eyewitness driving, on-scene observations, DRE evaluation) supported conviction; trial court properly denied new trial	Verdict could be explained by head trauma from the crash rather than drug impairment; evidence equally consistent with concussion	Trial court did not abuse discretion; jury could credit impairment evidence and rejection of head-trauma theory was not so contrary to the evidence as to shock the conscience

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (constitutional right to confront witnesses applies to states)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (definition and scope of testimonial statements under Confrontation Clause)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic reports are testimonial; analysts must testify unless unavailable)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony about forensic report violates Confrontation Clause)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (plurality on expert reliance on out-of-court statements and Confrontation issues)
Commonwealth v. Yohe, 79 A.3d 520 (Pa. Supreme Court: when an expert supervised testing, reviewed data, and signed report, Confrontation concerns were satisfied)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 139 A.3d 208 (Pa. Super. review of Confrontation Clause questions and standards)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (testimonial-evidence admissibility principles; unavailability and prior cross-examination)