Norton v. State
94 A.3d 110
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2014Background
- Norton was charged with armed robbery-related offenses and later with the attempted murder of a witness (Bennett); the cases were joined for trial.
- A black ski mask recovered from a storm drain produced a saliva-based DNA profile that matched Norton; the DNA analyst who performed and signed the report was Rachel Cline.
- At trial the State called Michael Cariola (a supervisor) to testify about Cline’s testing and to introduce Cline’s written DNA report; Cariola had not performed the testing but reviewed Cline’s report and lab notes.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude Cariola’s testimony and the Cline report on discovery and Confrontation Clause grounds; the court denied the motion and allowed Cariola to adopt and testify to Cline’s conclusions.
- On appeal the court (on remand in light of Derr II and Williams) held the Cline report was sufficiently formalized to be testimonial and that Cariola’s surrogate testimony violated the Sixth Amendment; convictions were reversed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Norton’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norton preserved Confrontation Clause challenge | In-limine objection and immediate notation at trial preserved issue; further objection would be futile | Failure to contemporaneously object waived the issue | Preserved: in-limine ruling close in time made contemporaneous objection unnecessary; issue reviewed |
| Whether admission of Cline’s DNA report via Cariola violated the Confrontation Clause | Cline’s report is testimonial; Cariola (non-testing reviewer) cannot substitute for Cline under Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming | Supervisor may testify about another analyst’s work; report admissible and Cariola’s testimony sufficient | Reversed: Cline’s report is sufficiently formalized/testimonial and surrogate testimony by Cariola violates the Confrontation Clause unless the preparer is unavailable and previously cross-examined |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation framework; testimonial statements require prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; analyst must be available for confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony by analyst who did not perform test violates Confrontation Clause)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. (plurality and concurrence addressed when forensic reports are testimonial)
- Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88 (Maryland Court of Appeals applying Williams’ narrow rationale re: formality/testimonial inquiry)
- Cooper v. State, 434 Md. 209 (applies Derr/Thomas standard; non-testimonial finding where report lacked formalities)
- Malaska v. State, 216 Md. App. 492 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. case treating autopsy report as testimonial based on signatures and formalities)