Summary
The Supreme Court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's out-of-court statements in support of the expert's opinion, and those statements support the opinion only if true, the statements are admitted for their truth. The Court rejected treating such evidence as nonhearsay merely because it is presented as the basis for an expert opinion. The Court remanded because it had not yet decided whether the analyst's statements were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an absent forensic analyst's out-of-court statements, conveyed by a substitute expert as the basis for the substitute expert's opinion, are admitted for the truth of the matter asserted when the opinion depends on the statements being true.
- Whether the statements conveyed by the substitute expert were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, including whether the State forfeited that issue.
Holdings
- When a prosecution expert conveys an absent analyst's out-of-court statements in support of the expert's opinion, and those statements support the opinion only if true, the statements are admitted for the truth of what they assert. Calling the evidence basis testimony or admitting it under an evidentiary rule does not change that constitutional analysis.
- The Court would not decide the testimonial character of Rast's statements because the issue was not presented in the certiorari question and had not been decided by the Arizona courts. That issue, including any threshold forfeiture question, must be considered by the Arizona Court of Appeals in the first instance.
- If the absent analyst's statements are testimonial, the Confrontation Clause bars the State from introducing them through a substitute analyst who did not participate in their creation, even when the substitute presents them as the basis for an expert opinion.
Key quotations
“When an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of his opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.” (602 U.S. at 783)
“And nothing changes if the surrogate—as in this case—presents the out-of-court statements as the basis for his expert opinion.” (602 U.S. at 803)
Factual background
Arizona officers executed a search warrant and found Jason Smith in a shed with a large quantity of suspected drugs and drug-related items. Crime-lab analyst Elizabeth Rast tested the seized items, documented her methods and results in notes and a signed report, and concluded that various items contained usable quantities of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cannabis. Rast left the laboratory before trial, so the State called Greggory Longoni, a substitute analyst who had not participated in the testing; Longoni conveyed Rast's recorded testing procedures and results before offering substantially identical opinions.
Procedural history
Arizona charged Smith with drug-possession and drug-sale offenses after law enforcement found him and suspected drugs on a property in Yuma County. At trial, substitute analyst Greggory Longoni testified about Elizabeth Rast's laboratory notes and report and gave opinions identifying the substances; Smith was convicted. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed under state precedent treating the absent analyst's statements as basis evidence admitted only to explain Longoni's opinion. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, vacated, and remanded for consideration of whether Rast's statements were testimonial, including whether Arizona forfeited that issue.
Remand instructions
Remand to the Arizona Court of Appeals to determine whether Rast's statements were testimonial, including whether Arizona forfeited its argument that the statements were not testimonial, and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.