Sanders v. Com., 711 S.E.2d 213

Sanders was charged with multiple sexual offenses against his daughter CL, under age 13.
Sanders moved to exclude any mention that CL had a sexually transmitted infection and any hearsay in a lab report.
Dr. Michelle Clayton conducted CL’s medical examination and ordered tests for STIs, sending samples to an independent California lab.
The hospital’s electronic records showed lab results; Dr. Clayton relied on those results in forming her diagnosis.
The circuit court ruled the lab report itself was likely inadmissible but allowed Dr. Clayton to rely on it as part of her expert diagnosis.
The Court of Appeals held the lab report was not testimonial; this Court granted review to resolve the confrontation issue under the Sixth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lab report results used by the doctor violate the Confrontation Clause	Sanders contends the lab results are testimonial	Commonwealth asserts the results are non-testimonial medical records	No Confrontation Clause violation; lab report not testimonial

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial unless for treatment)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation right applies to testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial in interrogations)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (assesses primary purpose and medical condition in evaluating statements)
Cyress v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 305 (Va. 2010) (contrast on certificates of analysis admitted as testimonial)
Aguilar v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 322 (Va. 2010) (evidence from live witness differing from testimonial declarations)