State v. Moncayo, 2012 NMCA 066

Police executed a search warrant at a Clovis residence; defendant was found with a baggie dropped into the engine compartment.
The baggie’s substance was sent to the New Mexico Crime Laboratory and tested by analyst Bergeron, who concluded it contained cocaine.
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute and tampering with evidence; he was also charged with resisting, evading, or obstructing arrest.
At the first trial, Nathanson testified about Bergeron’s report; defense objected citing Confrontation Clause; report admitted as non-testimonial; defendant acquitted on some counts and deadlocked on others.
At the retrial, Beninato, a different analyst, testified about the report despite Bergeron not testifying; court admitted the report as non-testimonial; defendant was convicted on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause impact of admitting the report via surrogate witness	Defendant argued report violated confrontation rights	Defendant contends no cross-exam; surrogate testimony improper	Violation; admission error not harmless
Harmless error analysis after Confrontation violation	State argues cumulative evidence supports guilt	Error cannot be harmless without Bergeron’s testimony	Not harmless; reversal warranted

State v. Aragon, 2010-NMSC-008 (NMSC 2010) (testimonial chemical reports require confrontation with the preparing analyst)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (surrogate testimony about an analyst’s report violates confrontation rights)
State v. Jaramillo, 2012-NMCA-029 (NMCA 2012) (narrow exception: independent opinion based on non-testifying report if unequivocal and data relied upon by experts)
Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 (NMSC 2012) (overruled Moore factors; focus on case-specific harmless error analysis)
State v. Skippings, 2011-NMSC-021 (NMSC 2011) (preservation and confrontation issues analyzed at summary level)