State v. Angela D. Brewer, 882 S.E.2d 156

A 13‑month‑old grandson died after ingesting a liquid later linked to oxycodone; paramedics pronounced him dead and samples were taken at autopsy.
Pathologist Dr. James Fulcher sent blood/tissue to National Medical Services (NMS), a private Pennsylvania lab, for toxicology; he later relied on the NMS report to conclude death from acute oxycodone toxicity.
State law enforcement submitted household items (two sippy cups) to SLED; one cup tested positive for oxycodone and another for methamphetamine/caffeine.
Brewer met detectives twice: a voluntary November interview and a December 18 custodial interview where she was Mirandized, admitted taking OxyContin and Valium, slurred and grew incoherent; she invoked counsel mid‑interview and the officers stopped questioning.
Trial court conducted a Jackson v. Denno hearing: it admitted the first portion of the December interrogation video (finding voluntariness under the totality of circumstances) but excluded later, more impaired portions; it also admitted Fulcher’s testimony based on the NMS report, finding the report nontestimonial.
Supreme Court affirmed admission of the interrogation excerpt but reversed Brewer’s conviction and sentence, holding the Confrontation Clause was violated by admitting the out‑of‑state lab results through Fulcher without the analyst testifying.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brewer)	Held
Whether the December 2014 custodial statement was voluntary despite Brewer’s medication use	Totality of circumstances shows Brewer understood and waived Miranda; trial court properly excluded only the later incoherent portion	Brewer was too intoxicated (Valium/OxyContin) to knowingly waive rights and her statements were involuntary	Affirmed: first portion admissible; trial court permissibly excluded the later portion as involuntary
Whether the out‑of‑state NMS toxicology report was testimonial such that the analyst must testify under the Confrontation Clause	NMS report was prepared to assist the pathologist in determining cause of death (nontestimonial); not prepared primarily for prosecution	NMS report was created as forensic evidence and used to prove a key fact; admitting it through Fulcher without the analyst denied confrontation	Reversed: NMS report was testimonial for purposes of prosecution; the analyst who performed testing must be subject to cross‑examination

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (announcing the confrontation requirement for testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (lab certificates identifying a substance are testimonial and require the analyst’s testimony)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (an expert who did not perform the test cannot be a surrogate to satisfy Confrontation Clause)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality opinion permitting some expert testimony relying on out‑of‑court reports when not offered for truth)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation warnings and waiver principles)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (pretrial hearing to determine voluntariness of confession)
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (cross‑examination as fundamental to testing witness reliability)
State v. Saxon, 261 S.C. 523, 201 S.E.2d 114 (S.C. 1973) (intoxication alone does not automatically render a confession involuntary)
State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 751 S.E.2d 645 (S.C. 2013) (chain‑of‑custody/log entries held nontestimonial where not used to prove key facts)