You are here: / / Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did...
, ,

Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis

The Third Department determined that the Confrontation Clause was not violated because a party [Lafond] who had signed the report identifying the controlled substance defendant was accused of selling did not testify.  The court determined Lafond had nothing to do with the chemical tests and analysis.  The party who actually did the chemical tests and analysis, Brant, testified:

…Brant – the analyst who identified the oxycodone, performed the chemical tests on it, determined the nature of the substance, and authored the report – in fact testified and was subject to crossexamination … .  The report is certified pursuant to CPL 190.30 (2) with the following language: “I, Clifford E. Brant, . . . hereby certify” and then states that it is “my [i.e. Brant’s] report and contains the opinions and interpretations of the examination I performed in the above referenced case” (emphasis added).  Brant also testified that Lafond cosigned the report after an administrative review of it, as required by State Police protocol.  There is no support in the record for the proposition that Lafond examined or analyzed the substance, observed Brant doing so, or was signing the report in that capacity.  Indeed, Brant testified that after he alone performed the forensic chemical testing, he sealed, signed and dated the laboratory bag containing the pill, which remained intact as of the trial, supporting the conclusion that Lafond only read and signed the report after it was completed to ensure that proper procedure was followed …, and she had no role in ascertaining or verifying the identity of the substance in issue.  Thus, the “actual analyst who performed the tests” … and “wr[o]te [the] report[]” … testified.   We find that Lafond, who neither analyzed the substance in issue nor authored the report, was not a “witness” against defendant for purposes of the Confrontation Clause … and, accordingly, no Crawford violation occurred as a result of the People admitting Brant’s report into evidence without calling Lafond to testify. People v Wolz, 104909, 104910, 3rd Dept 12-19-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
MEDICAL COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
CLAIMANT, WHO WAS UNABLE TO WORK BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE, WAS ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
THIRD DEPT DECLINED TO EXERCISE ITS INTEREST OF JUSTICE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING GUILTY, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN.
No Employer-Employee Relationship—Agency Places Waiters and Bartenders with Clients for Catered Functions
ALTHOUGH DEFECTS IN GUILTY PLEA NOT PRESERVED BY A MOTION, PLEA VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP.
NOTING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE 2ND AND 4TH DEPARTMENTS, THE 3RD DEPARTMENT SIDED WITH THE 2ND AND HELD THAT, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DECEASED, JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT IS REQUIRED FOR AN IN REM TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

New Trial Ordered: Juror Found “Grossly Unqualified” by the Trial Judge... Horse Deemed a “Companion Animal”/Aggravated Cruelty to Animals Conviction...