Commonwealth v. Milburn
72 A.3d 617
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Milburn convicted in absentia by jury of delivery of a controlled substance and PWID; two controlled buys in January 2007 at 2066 Bridge St.; warrant executed January 26, 2007, revealing cocaine and cash in Milburn's residence; lab chemist testified that substances from the buys and Milburn's residence tested positive for cocaine; Milburn sentenced to five to ten years; appeal alleging Confrontation Clause violations.
- Controlled buys involved a confidential informant and police officer testimony; Milburn was tried in 2011 after absconding and had a prior criminal history including burglary and aggravated assault.
- The central issue concerns whether testimony and reports from non-testifying analysts and reliance on their SCOTT test results violated Milburn’s Confrontation Clause rights.
- Trial court allowed a lab chemist to rely on tests performed by others; several SCOTT reports were prepared by non-testifying analysts but were not admitted into evidence; the court ultimately permitted the expert’s testimony based on those results.
- The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of sentence, resolving Confrontation Clause challenges in Milburn’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause—admission of non-testifying SCOTT reports | Milburn: non-testifying SCOTT reports admitted; violated rights | Commonwealth: reports not admitted; no violation | No Confrontation Clause violation; reports not admitted; expert relied on SCOTT results under Rule 703 |
| Confrontation Clause—reliance of expert on SCOTT results | Milburn: expert relied on tests performed by others | Commonwealth: Williams controls; expert not testimonial | Not a violation; Williams-based reasoning applies; expert testimony allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (S. Ct. 2009) (certificates testing substances deemed testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (laboratory report about test results cannot be admitted via surrogate testimony)
- Yohe v. Commonwealth, 39 A.3d 381 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Pennsylvania standard for confrontation; distinguishes in this context)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (S. Ct. 2012) (confrontation not violated where expert conveyed test results not in formality of formal reports)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (S. Ct. 2004) (establishes test for testimonial statements and right to cross-examine)