Martin v. State
2013 Del. LEXIS 53
Del.2013Background
- Defendant Larry Martin was pulled over for speeding; blood drawn and sent to OCME for PCP testing.
- OCME chemist Heather Wert performed tests but did not testify at trial.
- Jessica Smith, OCME Chief Forensic Toxicologist and laboratory manager, testified and certified the report.
- Smith relied on Wert’s batch reports and did not observe Wert perform the tests.
- Smith’s certified report was admitted; Wert’s underlying statements were not independently cross-examined.
- The Superior Court denied in limine relief to exclude the forensic reports absent the analyst’s testimony; trial proceeded with Wert’s representations, leading to conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wert’s batch statements were testimonial and admitted for truth | State argues statements were testimonial and admissible only via confrontation | Martin contends statements not properly admitted without Wert’s live testimony | Yes; Wert’s statements were testimonial and admitted for truth |
| Whether denial of the in limine motion violated Confrontation Clause | State contends ruling was proper under case law | Martin argues denial allowed testimonial statements without confrontation | No; reversal required due to Confrontation violation |
| What standard governs confrontation in multitechnique laboratory testing scenarios | State relies on Bullcoming and related cases | Martin emphasizes need for analyst who performed or observed testing | Court adopts approach aligning Wert’s testimony with Bullcoming—defendant must confront the testing analyst; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial witnesses)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (testifying analyst must confront certifying analyst; reports are testimonial)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (plaintiff plurality on DNA evidence; issues unresolved; various views on testimonial nature)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (limits evasion of confrontation by adjournment-type testimony)