People v. Lopez
55 Cal. 4th 569
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant Virginia Hernandez Lopez was charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated after a crash that killed another driver.
- Prosecution introduced a lab report on blood-alcohol content two hours after the accident, authored by Jorge Peña who did not testify; a colleague testified about the report.
- Willey, a criminalist, testified about Peña’s report and his own analysis confirming 0.09% BAC, and Peña’s report was admitted into evidence.
- Treuting testified about BAC levels and how alcohol would affect impairment, offering competing numerical estimates based on drinking history.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, finding a Confrontation Clause violation from admitting Peña’s report and Willey’s testimony about it; the Supreme Court reversed that denial.
- Key issue is whether Peña’s report and the associated notations and machine printouts were testimonial and thus barred absent Peña’s live testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Peña’s report and its notations testimonial? | Lopez contends the report is testimonial and subject to cross-examination. | Lopez denies that the report’s notations are testimonial or that its admission violated Confrontation. | Not testimonial; admission permissible with cross-examination of Willey on methodology. |
| Is machine-generated data (printouts) from the gas chromatograph testimonial? | Printouts are formal statements; their admission should violate Confrontation if testimonial. | Machine readouts are not statements by a declarant and do not implicate confrontation. | Printouts are not testimonial; their admission did not violate Confrontation. |
| Does the first-page notations linking defendant to sample No. 070-7737 render the record testimonial? | Notations could be testimonial as part of the lab’s evidentiary record. | Notations are informal internal data; not testimonial. | Not testimonial; admission harmless in light of independent BAC evidence. |
| Do Crawford/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming/Williams controls require suppressing Peña’s report? | Under Melendez-Diaz-type reasoning, non-testifying lab results are testimonial. | Williams and related opinions show complexity; not all lab records are testimonial. | quartet of cases supports ruling that Peña’s report is not testimonial here. |
| Was any error harmless or reversible given the BAC evidence? | Error would be reversible if it undermined critical BAC proof. | If not testimonial, the error is harmless; the result would stand. | Error was harmless for the non-testimonial notations; but the primary result held reversible on the logsheet linkage, leading to reversal of the appellate ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial framework)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (laboratory certificates are testimonial when used at trial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (testimony about a lab certificate deemed testimonial)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) (considered primary purpose and formality; plurality approach debated)
- Geier v. California, 41 Cal.4th 555 (2007) (non-testimonial vs. testimonial based on contemporaneous vs. past events test)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (formality and emergency context inform testimonial analysis)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard for Confrontation Clause claims)
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (distinguishes business records from evidence produced for litigation)