State v. Rozerick E. Mattox
2017 WI 9
| Wis. | 2017Background
- Decedent S.L. was found dead with signs of injection; Waukesha Deputy Medical Examiner performed autopsy and sent blood/urine/tissue samples to St. Louis University Toxicology Lab per routine autopsy protocol.
- The toxicology report listed numerical concentrations of morphine, 6‑MAM (heroin metabolite), codeine, and related figures; it was signed but not sworn, certified, or interpretive.
- The medical examiner (Dr. Okia) used the toxicology numbers, together with autopsy findings, to conclude cause of death: acute heroin intoxication; she testified about the meaning of the numbers at trial.
- Police independently investigated and developed evidence linking Mattox to supplying heroin to S.L.; Mattox was tried (bench) for first‑degree reckless homicide resulting from delivery of heroin that caused S.L.’s death.
- The toxicology analyst who signed the report did not testify; Mattox objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The circuit court admitted the report for the medical examiner’s opinion basis; the court of appeals certified the confrontation question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting the toxicology report (and medical examiner testimony based on it) violated Mattox's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights | The State: report was non‑testimonial because it was produced to assist the medical examiner in determining cause of death (not created for prosecution); admission through the examiner did not deny confrontation | Mattox: the toxicology report is testimonial forensic evidence and the lab analyst’s absence deprived him of the right to cross‑examine the declarant | Held: No confrontation violation — the report was non‑testimonial under the Supreme Court’s "primary purpose" test (Ohio v. Clark); admission was permissible when requested by ME as part of autopsy protocol and not produced at police request |
| Whether Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming control (i.e., forensic reports are categorically testimonial) | Mattox: those cases require live testimony from the analyst where a lab report is used to prove an element of the crime | State: Melendez‑Diaz/Bullcoming differ because those reports were created at police request or were affidavit‑like and intended for prosecution; here samples were collected before any suspect or prosecution existed | Held: Distinguishable — Melendez‑Diaz and Bullcoming involve reports prepared for law‑enforcement evidentiary purposes and formal certification; this toxicology report lacked that primary purpose/formality |
| Whether court should adopt a general rule exempting autopsy/toxicology reports from Confrontation Clause | State asked for broad declaration that autopsy and similar toxicology reports are generally non‑testimonial | Mattox (and dissent): primary purpose inquiry is fact‑specific; reports can be testimonial depending on police involvement, formality, and whether prepared to prove facts for prosecution | Held: Court declined a categorical rule for autopsy reports generally, but held a narrower rule: toxicology reports like this one (numeric concentration data, requested by ME, not at police impetus) are generally non‑testimonial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Crawford established that admission of out‑of‑court "testimonial" statements absent prior cross‑examination violates the Sixth Amendment)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates made for prosecution were testimonial; authors must testify)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (lab report certifying blood‑alcohol was testimonial; surrogate testimony insufficient)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (plurality: certain forensic results not testimonial where primary purpose was not to accuse a specific individual)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015) (reaffirmed objective "primary purpose" test for whether out‑of‑court statements are testimonial)
- State v. Heine, 354 Wis. 2d 1, 844 N.W.2d 409 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014) (court of appeals held similar toxicology report admissible)
- State v. VanDyke, 361 Wis. 2d 738, 863 N.W.2d 626 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015) (court of appeals held similar toxicology report testimonial; overruled here)