Marshall v. People, 309 P.3d 943

Marshall rear-ended a vehicle, then backed into it in Thornton; police sent her urine for toxicology screening confirming methamphetamine presence.
Laboratory testing involved two chemists (screening and confirmation) and a supervisor (Burbach) who certified the results.
Burbach did not personally perform the tests but supervised and certified the data and signed the final report.
Defense moved to require the technician who performed the analysis testify under section 16-8-809(5); People called Burbach instead.
The court admitted the lab report and two exhibits (chain of custody and the urinalysis results) under hearsay and foundation rules; Defendant was charged with DUI, careless driving, and drug paraphernalia possession.
The court ultimately upheld admission of the lab report, reversed on the drug paraphernalia charge, and remanded for consistent proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause applicability to lab report evidence	Supervisor testimony appropriate	Potentially prejudicial surrogate testimony	Not reached as dispositive; majority holds permissible

Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony cannot convey observed test facts; confrontation required)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic report as testimonial; right to confront analyst)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause supports cross-examination of witnesses)
Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2007) (Colorado reaffirmation of confrontation rights)
United States v. Summers, 666 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2011) (supervisor testimony in DNA context may satisfy Confrontation Clause)