State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp, 336 P.3d 753

Matthew Voris was charged with DUI; his blood was analyzed by Scottsdale lab analyst Lynette Kogler using gas chromatography (GC). Kogler later left and would not testify.
The State sought to have lab technical leader Jennifer Valdez testify giving her independent opinion of Voris’s blood-alcohol concentration after reviewing Kogler’s notes, chromatograms, QC printouts, and QA summaries.
The State did not intend to admit the underlying lab documents into evidence; Valdez would testify to her own conclusions based on those materials.
The justice court excluded Valdez’s testimony as violating Voris’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, reasoning she would be a substitute for the non-testifying analyst and the reports were testimonial.
The superior court granted special-action relief to the State, applying State v. Joseph and ruling Valdez’s independent opinion based on the non-testifying analyst’s reports was admissible; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Voris)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether an expert may testify with an independent opinion based on forensic reports prepared by a non-testifying analyst	Valis/ V oris: testimony violates Confrontation Clause because underlying reports are testimonial and non-testifying analyst unavailable; surrogate cannot substitute	State: Rule 703 permits experts to base opinions on inadmissible facts/data; expert may give independent opinion after review without admitting the reports; Joseph controls	Court held admissible: an expert may testify to her independent opinion based on non-testifying analyst’s reports under Rule 703 if she reasonably relied on them and is subject to cross-examination

State v. Joseph, 230 Ariz. 296 (Ariz. 2012) (substitute expert may testify to independent opinion after reviewing non-testifying expert’s report; not mere conduit)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (blood-alcohol report was testimonial; surrogate testimony presenting another analyst’s conclusions is insufficient)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (U.S. 2012) (plurality: expert may relate out-of-court statements to explain the basis of an opinion when not offered for their truth)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (discusses what constitutes testimonial/formalized statements for Confrontation Clause analysis)