State v. Brent, 367 N.C. 73

Defendant was tried for possession of cocaine; a forensic scientist testified to an independent opinion based on tests performed by another analyst in the same laboratory.
Court of Appeals reversed, finding Confrontation Clause violation in admitting the expert’s opinion based on non-testifying testing.
Police detained defendant on 2 April 2008 for trespass; object dropped from his left pants area and a white chalky substance was observed.
Interviews at the magistrate’s office occurred after a Miranda waiver; defendant admitted the substance was cocaine purchased for $100.
At trial, Agent Lindley testified she formed an independent opinion that the substance was cocaine base based on data and graphs generated by the laboratory’s testing equipment.
The State petitioned for discretionary review; defendant argued preservation and confrontation issues; the majority held issues were not preserved for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of the expert’s independent opinion violated Confrontation Clause.	State argues independent opinion based on admissible data; cross-examination available.	Brent asserts confrontation violation by relying on non-testifying data.	Waived for review; no reversal on preservation grounds.
Whether the raw data and graphs used by the expert were admissible to support the opinion.	Raw data and graphs are admissible to show basis of expert’s opinion.	Raw machine data should be scrutinized under confrontation rules.	Admissible as basis for opinion; not Confrontation Clause error.

State v. Ray, 364 N.C. 272 (2010) (timeliness and preservation requirement for admitting evidence)
State v. Thibodeaux, 352 N.C. 570 (2000) (contemporaneous objection required for error preservation)