Perry Armstead v. State of Mississippi, 196 So. 3d 913

In April 2013 two controlled buys of cocaine were made from Perry Armstead by confidential informant Shondra Hill (with Carrington Butler assisting); both buys were recorded and the substances later tested positive for cocaine.
Armstead was indicted on two counts of sale of less than two grams of cocaine and charged as a habitual and subsequent drug offender; trial occurred January 2015.
Forensic scientist Claudette Gilman personally tested Exhibits 6 and 7 and served as the technical reviewer for Exhibit 2; she testified at trial that all exhibits contained cocaine; defense did not object or cross-examine her about not personally testing Exhibit 2.
The lab reports were not admitted into evidence; Gilman’s initials appeared on the exhibits and she explained her role reviewing the primary analyst’s data and signing off on Exhibit 2.
Jury convicted Armstead on both counts; he was sentenced as a habitual and subsequent drug offender to consecutive 16-year terms (32 years total) without parole and fined.
On appeal Armstead argued his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated by admission of Gilman’s testimony regarding Exhibit 2 because she did not personally perform the test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Armstead)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether testimony of a technical reviewer who did not perform underlying test violated Confrontation Clause	Gilman did not perform or observe testing of Exhibit 2, so Armstead was denied the right to confront the analyst who produced the report	Gilman was actively involved as technical reviewer, had intimate knowledge, offered independent opinion, and thus satisfied confrontation requirements	No Confrontation Clause violation; Gilman’s testimony admissible and any error not plain or prejudicial

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (defendant has right to confront testimonial out-of-court statements)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; authors must be available for cross-examination)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (surrogate testimony by witness with no role in test insufficient to satisfy Confrontation Clause)
McGowen v. State, 859 So. 2d 320 (testifying reviewer who participated in analysis in some capacity may satisfy confrontation)
Jenkins v. State, 102 So. 3d 1063 (supervisor/reviewer who was actively involved and had intimate knowledge may testify for primary analyst)
Grim v. State, 102 So. 3d 1073 (technical reviewer’s testimony upheld where reviewer competently explained testing and reached independent conclusion)
Hingle v. State, 153 So. 3d 659 (admission through reviewing analyst upheld where reviewer had personal knowledge and signed report)