Bullcoming v. New Mexico

131 S.Ct. 2705 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Bullcoming (D) rear-ended a pick-up truck. The driver of the truck noticed that D's eyes were bloodshot and his breath smelled of alcohol. The police were called but D left the scene. D was soon apprehended by an officer who observed his performance on field sobriety tests. D was arrested for driving a vehicle while 'under the influence of intoxicating liquor.' D refused to take a breath test, so a warrant authorizing a blood-alcohol analysis was obtained. Blood was drawn at a local hospital. The sample was sent to the New Mexico Department of Health, Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD). As part of the report, there was a 'certificate of analyst,' completed and signed by Curtis Caylor, the SLD forensic analyst assigned to test D's blood sample. Caylor recorded 0.21 grams per hundred milliliters, an inordinately high level. This supported a prosecution for aggravated DWI, the threshold for which is a BAC of 0.16 grams per hundred milliliters. P charged D with this more serious crime. Caylor also affirmed that 'the seal of the sample was received intact and broken in the laboratory,' that 'the statements in [the analyst's block of the report] are correct,' and that he had 'followed the procedures set out on the reverse of the report.' SLD analysts use gas chromatograph machines to determine BAC levels. Operation of the machines requires specialized knowledge and training. Several steps are involved in the gas chromatograph process, and human error can occur at each step. The case was tried by a jury in November 2005, after Crawford v. Washington but before Melendez-Diaz. On the day of the trial, P announced that it would not be calling SLD analyst Curtis Caylor as a witness because he had 'very recently [been] put on unpaid leave' for a reason not revealed. D objected. Without Caylor's testimony, the introduction of the analyst's finding would violate D's Sixth Amendment right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' The trial court overruled the objection, and D was convicted of aggravated DWI. The New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, concluding that 'the blood alcohol report in the present case was non-testimonial and prepared routinely with guarantees of trustworthiness.' While D's appeal was pending before the New Mexico Supreme Court, the Supreme Court decided Melendez-Diaz. In light of Melendez-Diaz, the New Mexico Supreme Court acknowledged that the blood-alcohol report introduced at D's trial qualified as testimonial evidence. However, the court said certifying analyst Caylor 'was a mere scrivener,' who 'simply transcribed the results generated by the gas chromatograph machine.' Also, analyst Razatos qualified as an expert witness with respect to the gas chromatograph machine. Razatos' testimony was crucial, the court explained, because D could not cross-examine the machine or the written report. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.