John Matthew Cone v. State, 383 S.W.3d 627

Appellant Cone was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and received eight years’ imprisonment.
The State admitted a BAC lab report and testimony calculating BAC from a non-testifying analyst’s blood test over objection.
The BAC evidence showed a 0.19 g/dL BAC at 11:12 p.m., with an estimated 0.20–0.21 at the time of the 9:00 p.m. crash.
Defendant’s primary defense argued the left-front ball joint failure, not intoxication, caused the crash.
The State presented extensive evidence of intoxication under the per se and normal-use theories, including witnesses, medical records, and a restaurant receipt showing heavy drinking before the crash.
The trial court admitted Ocanas’s BAC testimony; the issue on appeal is whether this violated the Confrontation Clause and whether any error was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause applicability of BAC evidence	Cone	Cone	Harmless error beyond reasonable doubt
Harms analysis of admitted BAC evidence	Ocanas’s BAC was crucial	BAC evidence was pivotal	Error harmless given extensive non-BAC intoxication evidence

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic reports as testimonial evidence under Confrontation Clause)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot satisfy confrontation when the analyst did not participate)
McWilliams v. State, 367 S.W.3d 817 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (affects confrontation analysis in Texas context)
Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (harm analysis factors for evidentiary error)
Wilson v. State, 296 S.W.3d 140 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (harmless-error framework for Confrontation Clause issues)
Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (conduct of harm review—whether error moved jury to persuade)
Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (consideration of alternative theories of intoxication for harm analysis)