Ezell v. State
132 So. 3d 611
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Dexter Ezell convicted of sale of a controlled substance within 1,500 feet of a school; sentenced to 60 years in MDOC custody.
- At trial, forensic scientist Tara Milam testified the seized substance was cocaine.
- Milam worked in administration, was certified as an analyst, and performed peer reviews; it was unclear if she personally ran the test.
- Ezell did not contemporaneously object at trial nor raise a post-trial objection to Milam’s testimony.
- On appeal Ezell argued Milam’s testimony violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford because he could not cross-examine the person who actually tested the sample.
- The court considered whether the issue was procedurally barred and, if not, whether admission of Milam’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting Milam’s testimony violated Ezell’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the analyst who tested the drug | Milam did not personally perform the test; Ezell had no opportunity to cross-examine the actual analyst, violating Crawford | Milam was an accepted expert who participated (peer review/signature) and was qualified to testify about the analysis | The claim is procedurally barred for lack of contemporaneous objection, but on the merits the court found no Confrontation Clause violation because Milam, as a court-accepted expert who participated in the analysis, could testify |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes Confrontation Clause right to confront testimonial witnesses)
- McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320 (Miss. 2003) (expert who participated in analysis in some capacity may testify without violating Confrontation Clause)
- Smith v. State, 986 So.2d 290 (Miss. 2008) (Confrontation Clause violation is a fundamental substantive right under plain-error review)
- Briggs v. State, 16 So.3d 696 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (failure to make contemporaneous objection to evidence is procedurally barred)
- Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388 (Miss. 2009) (appellate review principles regarding preservation of trial objections)