State v. DibbernState v. Dibbern
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Schuman
Defendant appeals his convictions for manufacturing a controlled substance,
The trial court admitted two laboratory reports prepared by an employee of the Oregon State Police Forensics Laboratory that established that the substance found in defendant’s home on a triple-beam scale and inside two small plastic bags was methamphetamine. Defendant argues that the admission of the reports denied him the right to confront the author of the reports in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in
Crawford v. Washington,
541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004). We recently addressed defendant’s argument in
State v. Wells,
208 Or App 480, 482, 144 P3d 1077 (2006). We concluded that Confrontation Clause concerns are satisfied by the availability of a procedure, under
Affirmed.
Notes
Former