Milligan v. State, 116 A.3d 1232

On Sept. 12, 2013, Milligan was injured in a crash; Trooper Rollins obtained a warrant and watched phlebotomist Lewis Purcell draw her blood. The sealed blood kit was transported to Troop 5 and later to the Delaware State Police Crime Lab.
At the lab, Deborah Louie received the kit on Sept. 18; crime lab director Juliann Willey retrieved and tested the sample, signed the Chemical Test Report (inside the kit), and testified that the seal was intact. Willey did not sign the external Chain of Possession Log.
Willey ran control samples on a chromatograph before testing; she could not recall whether she personally prepared those controls but testified she reviewed and found the results reliable.
The blood test showed a BAC of 0.15%. Milligan was indicted for third-offense DUI, failure to have insurance card, and improper lane change; at trial Willey, Rollins, and the phlebotomist testified and the State introduced the Chemical Test Report and Chain of Possession Log.
Milligan was convicted of DUI and improper lane change and appealed, arguing (1) admission of chain-of-custody documents in lieu of live testimony violated her Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, and (2) the State failed to lay an adequate foundation for admitting the blood-test results.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting chain-of-custody documents under 21 Del. C. § 4177(h)(3) without live testimony from every person who handled the sample violated the Sixth Amendment	Milligan: every individual who took possession of the blood must testify live; admitting signed chain documents without those witnesses denied confrontation	State: Delaware law allows signed chain-of-custody statements to be prima facie evidence without live testimony; not all who touched evidence must testify; the testing/certifying analyst (Willey) did testify	Court: Rejected Milligan — Melendez-Diaz and progeny do not require live testimony from every person in the chain; here the analyst who tested and certified (Willey) testified, so no Confrontation Clause violation
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting blood-test results absent proper foundation (broken chain, signatures, dates, control prep)	Milligan: Willey didn’t sign external log; Louie signed internal report; autosampler list had wrong date; Willey could not recall preparing controls — these undermine foundation and chain	State: Willey testified she removed a sealed kit, opened it and supervised entry on the internal report; she explained the date error and reviewed controls and results; inconsistencies go to weight, not admissibility	Court: No abuse of discretion — explanations were plausible; any gaps affect weight, not admissibility; proper foundation established

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior cross-exam opportunity)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial; analysts are witnesses for Sixth Amendment purposes; but not everyone in chain must testify)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (admitting a forensic report through a surrogate who neither signed nor performed the test violates Confrontation Clause)
Martin v. State, 60 A.3d 1100 (Del. 2013) (Delaware Supreme Court held admission of lab report without testimony from the testing analyst violated Confrontation Clause)
Demby v. State, 695 A.2d 1127 (Del. 1997) (gaps or incomplete recollection in chain-of-custody testimony affect weight, not admissibility)