State v. Gonzales
1 N.M. Ct. App. 472
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dr. Krinsky, an OMI forensic pathologist, was listed as an expert for the death of Packer though she did not perform the autopsy.
- Dr. Williams performed the autopsy; the State chose not to require his trial testimony or to introduce the autopsy report.
- The district court excluded Krinsky as a witness based on Confrontation Clause concerns.
- The State will not introduce the autopsy report itself but seeks Krinsky’s independent expert testimony.
- The issue is whether Krinsky’s testimony violates Confrontation Clause rights when she relies on underlying autopsy data but does not admit the autopsy report itself.
- The court reviews an interlocutory appeal and remands for trial to determine admissibility under Confrontation Clause and Rule 11-703 NMRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krinsky’s testimony violates the Confrontation Clause. | Krinsky’s independent expert testimony is permissible. | Allowing Krinsky would parrot non-testifying author’s conclusions. | Not per se barred; remand to evaluate under Confrontation Clause principles. |
| Whether the autopsy report is testimonial and triggers confrontation. | Autopsy-related evidence may be deemed testimonial under modern precedent. | If not admitted, confrontation concerns are minimized. | Autopsy report not admitted here; analysis focuses on Krinsky’s testimony rather than the report itself. |
| What is the proper standard of review for admissibility of expert testimony based on another’s data. | Expert opinions based on applicable data may be admissible if independently formed. | Testimony relying on non-testifying data risks confrontation violations. | Balancing test applies; not a per se violation; requires case-by-case analysis on remand. |
| Whether a substitute expert may testify based on another doctor’s findings without violating Crawford/Bullcoming. | Court should allow independent expert testimony if not parroting. | Surrogate testimony risks undermining confrontation rights. | Not categorically prohibited; depend on whether expert discloses underlying data and forms independent opinion. |
| Whether the district court’s exclusion was premature given the record. | Record shows potential for Krinsky to testify within rules. | Exclusion may be appropriate to protect confrontation rights. | Exclusion premature; reverse and remand for careful trial-court evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and subject to confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony violates confrontation when original analyst testifies not)
- Aragon v. State, 2010-NMSC-008 (N.M. 2010) (limits on using non-testifying analysts; cross-examination must be possible)
- State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041 (N.M. 2011) (discusses testimony of pathologists who were present or relied on others’ notes)
- State v. Jaramillo, 2012-NMCA-029 (N.M. Court of Appeals 2012) (autopsy-related testimony discussed in testimonial context)
- Pablo v. United States, 625 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2010) (analyst may rely on others’ data but offer independent opinion)