Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota consolidated appeals by Billie Jo Campbell and Thomas David Pinks concerning the admission of a state crime laboratory report identifying seized substances as marijuana. The court held that, even assuming the report was testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, the defendants waived any potential violation by failing to subpoena the forensic scientist under the applicable statute. The court affirmed the judgments of conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether admission of the certified state crime laboratory report violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against them.
- Whether the defendants waived any potential Confrontation Clause violation by failing to subpoena the report's author under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-37(5).
Holdings
- The court declined to decide whether the crime laboratory report was testimonial because the defendants' failure to subpoena the report's author resolved the appeal.
- A defendant waives the ability to complain of a potential Confrontation Clause violation when the defendant fails to use the statutory opportunity to subpoena the available author of a crime laboratory report.
Key quotations
“In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the Supreme Court held the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless, when the witness is unavailable to testify, the accused has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.” (719 N.W.2d at 376)
“Because neither Pinks nor Campbell attempted to subpoena the forensic scientist as provided by statute, they have waived their ability to complain of a constitutional violation.” (719 N.W.2d at 378)
Factual background
After a disturbance at a Washburn bar, police stopped a Blazer in which Pinks was a passenger and Campbell was seated in the rear. Officers found suspected marijuana residue and paraphernalia in or associated with the vehicle and Campbell's belongings. At trial, the State introduced a certified state crime laboratory report identifying the seized substances as marijuana; the forensic scientist who prepared the report did not testify, and neither defendant subpoenaed that witness.
Procedural history
Pinks was convicted of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence and possessing marijuana paraphernalia, and was acquitted of criminal mischief. Campbell was convicted of possessing marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. The district court admitted the certified crime laboratory report despite the defendants' objection, and both defendants appealed.