Commonwealth v. Yohe
39 A.3d 381
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellee Yohe was stopped for equipment violations; urine? actually blood drawn after DUI suspicion and charged with two counts under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802.
- Bench trial on August 30, 2010; Commonwealth relied on Officer George and Dr. Blum (toxicologist) and the toxicology report.
- Yohe objected to Dr. Blum’s testimony and to the admission of the blood-alcohol report on Confrontation Clause grounds; objections overruled.
- Yohe was convicted under § 3802(b) and acquitted under § 3802(a)(1); sentenced October 25, 2010 to 48 hours–6 months and $500 fine.
- Yohe moved for a post-sentence new trial asserting Confrontation Clause violation due to lack of a testifying analyst.
- Trial court granted the post-sentence motion and ordered a new trial; Commonwealth appealed as of right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the blood test report was admissible without the analyst testifying | Yohe contends the analyst must testify under Confrontation Clause | Commonwealth argues the toxicologist’s testimony suffices under 702/703 and Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming analysis | Court held Dr. Blum's certification suffices; reversal of new-trial order; uphold admission of report |
| Did the trial court err by requiring the testifying analyst to be the one who performed the test | Yohe asserts the actual tester must testify | Commonwealth contends the certifying analyst can satisfy Confrontation | Held no error; certification by Dr. Blum supports admissibility |
| Whether Melendez-Diaz/Barton-Martin Bullcoming control whether a lab report is testimonial | Yohe relies on Bart-on-Martin to require the tester witness | Commonwealth relies on Bullcoming/Melendez-Diaz to permit certification by a reviewing analyst | Held Bullcoming controls; the certifying analyst can satisfy Confrontation when properly qualified |
| Whether the trial court’s interpretation threatened Confrontation rights under the state constitution | Yohe argues Confrontation rights were violated by excluding the tester | Commonwealth asserts Confrontation rights satisfied by certified report and cross-examination of the certifying analyst | Held Fifth Amendment Confrontation rights satisfied; no violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (testimony required for forensic reports; certificates are testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court 2011) (certified report testimony requires the signing analyst to testify)
- Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin, 5 A.3d 363 (Pa.Super.2010) (lab tech's testimony required; custodian of records insufficient when unavailable)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause prohibits testimonial hearsay without cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246 (Pa.Super.2006) (Confrontation Clause guidance in Pennsylvania; reliability via confrontation)
- Commonwealth v. Geiger, 944 A.2d 85 (Pa.Super.2008) (Pennsylvania constitution provides rights equivalent to Sixth Amendment)