State v. Carmona, 371 P.3d 1056

Background

In 2003, nine-year-old P.W. reported sexual contact by Mario Carmona; a SANE nurse (Lydia Vandiver) examined P.W., collected labeled swabs and other items, and placed them in a standardized New Mexico sexual assault kit.
Carmona was indicted for criminal sexual contact of a minor; prosecution was paused while he served time elsewhere and resumed in 2011; the court ordered Carmona to provide a buccal swab for DNA comparison.
The SANE who collected the 2003 evidence (Vandiver) died in 2013; the State’s DNA expert (Alanna Williams) tested the preserved swabs and compared profiles, concluding Carmona’s DNA was present.
Defense moved to suppress the DNA evidence and Williams’s report, arguing (1) lack of admissible chain-of-custody/relevance without Vandiver’s testimony and (2) Confrontation Clause violation because Vandiver (the declarant of the labels/kit inventory) was unavailable for cross-examination.
The district court suppressed the expert opinion on multiple grounds (relevance under Rule 11-401, unreliable chain of custody, and Confrontation Clause). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert may testify that Defendant's DNA matched profiles on swabs collected by an unavailable SANE without violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: Expert’s opinion is admissible because she tested the physical swabs and relied on labels/shipping info; Williams’s testimony does not implicate testimonial hearsay or is non-testimonial under Williams	Carmona: Expert’s opinion depends on testimonial out-of-court statements (labels/inventory) by Vandiver; without Vandiver, admission denies right to confront declarant	Held: Exclusion affirmed—statements on kit labels are testimonial and, with Vandiver unavailable, admitting expert opinion based on them violates Confrontation Clause
Whether the expert’s testimony is relevant absent proof that the tested swabs came from P.W.	State: The tested swabs were linked to P.W. by chain-of-custody records and labels, so the expert’s DNA comparison is relevant	Carmona: Without Vandiver’s testimony tying the labeled swabs to P.W., expert’s results are merely DNA from unknown swabs and thus irrelevant	Held: Relevance depends on the testimonial labeling; expert’s relevance derived from Vandiver’s out-of-court statements, which are testimonial and inadmissible when declarant unavailable
Whether chain-of-custody was adequately proven through other witnesses and records	State: Chain of custody was established by SANE coordinator and delivery records; other chain witnesses and lab logs suffice	Carmona: The critical link is Vandiver’s identification of which swabs she used and where from; coordinator testimony does not replace Vandiver’s firsthand role	Held: Even assuming some chain evidence, the decisive problem is testimonial foundation (labels); absence of Vandiver precludes use of her statements as basis for expert opinion
Whether federal and state precedent (Williams/Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming/Navarette) permit expert reliance on nontestifying analysts’ or collectors’ reports	State: Williams and Rule 703 permit experts to rely on underlying data; Williams upheld expert testimony in similar DNA match context	Carmona: Williams does not control; Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming classify lab reports as testimonial when produced for prosecutorial purposes; Navarette interprets Williams to exclude reliance on testimonial basis evidence	Held: Court applies Williams as interpreted by New Mexico Supreme Court (Navarette) and Bullcoming/Melendez-Diaz to conclude the labels were testimonial and their use violated the Confrontation Clause

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible absent opportunity for cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (introduces the primary-purpose test to determine whether statements are testimonial)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates created for prosecution are testimonial)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (lab reports and certificates prepared for evidentiary purposes are testimonial; surrogate testimony insufficient)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (fractured decision on expert reliance upon non-testifying lab reports; no single controlling rationale)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (overruled by Crawford but cited for historical context on reliability-focused Confrontation analysis)