Scott Speers v. State of Indiana
999 N.E.2d 850
| Ind. | 2013Background
- On Oct. 25, 2010 a Martinsville gun store was burglarized; broken glass with apparent blood was recovered and sealed by an evidence technician and sent to the Indiana State Police Laboratory.
- A CODIS hit led to a cheek swab from Scott Speers; lab analysis matched Speers’ DNA to the swabs taken from the glass.
- At trial the analyst who performed the DNA testing and authored the Certificates of Analysis (Lori James) testified and opined the glass swabs matched Speers; the laboratory technician who transferred the blood from the glass to swabs (Nichole Stickle) did not testify.
- Speers objected that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right was violated because the transferring technician was not produced for cross‑examination; the State introduced the lab reports and James’s testimony over objection.
- Speers was convicted of burglary and theft; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer only to address the Confrontation Clause issue and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting DNA evidence without live testimony from the technician who transferred the sample violated the Sixth Amendment | State: The testifying analyst who performed the testing and prepared the reports satisfied Confrontation Clause requirements | Speers: The transferring technician’s testimony was necessary because she performed the crucial transfer step and could have affected results | Held: No violation — the testifying analyst who performed the testing and signed the reports satisfied Confrontation Clause; gaps in chain of custody go to weight, not admissibility |
| Whether Williams v. Illinois requires production of the transferring technician | State: Williams is inapposite because both profiles were analyzed by the testifying state analyst | Speers: Williams suggests surrogate testimony is inadequate when the actual tester doesn’t testify | Held: Williams is distinguishable; here the actual analyst who tested and certified the samples testified |
| Whether Pendergrass permits surrogate testimony (i.e., lab supervisor testimony instead of actual analyst) | State: Relies on prior state decisions allowing testimony by those involved | Speers: Argues Pendergrass controls and surrogate testimony satisfied Confrontation Clause | Held: Pendergrass undermined by Bullcoming; but not controlling here because the actual analyst testified |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial vs. non‑testimonial framework for Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (addresses limits of expert testimony relying on out‑of‑court lab reports)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (requires confrontation of the analyst who actually made the certification; surrogate testimony insufficient)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (certificates of analysis are testimonial; analysts are witnesses for Confrontation Clause purposes but not everyone in chain must testify)
- Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2009) (previous Indiana decision allowing testimony by a laboratory supervisor who reviewed tests)
- Kennedy v. State, 578 N.E.2d 633 (establishes gaps in chain of custody affect weight, not admissibility)