Opinion
No. 1-834 / 01-0070.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, GEORGE W. BERGESON, Judge.
Alfredo Garcia appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver, and failure to affix a drug stamp. AFFIRMED.
Alfredo Garcia, Pro Se, and Maria Ruhtenberg, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Stephanie Cox, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Alfredo Garcia appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401 (1)(d) and failure to affix a tax stamp in violation of Iowa Code sections 435B.3 and 435B.12 (1999). He claims the district court erred in admitting a DCI laboratory report into evidence. Garcia argues the admission of the laboratory report without accompanying testimony violates his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. We affirm on appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Supreme Court Rule 9.
In February 1999 a narcotics enforcement agent received information regarding a large amount of marijuana being delivered to the Des Moines area. Based on information in this tip officers proceeded to 1916 Lincoln Avenue where they found Garcia's van parked outside. Garcia cooperated with police and consented to the van's search. Officers, with the aid of a police dog, discovered a hidden compartment in the van containing over ninety pounds of marijuana. As a result, Garcia was charged with drug offenses.
Trial commenced on October 9, 2000. At trial, over the defendant's objection, the State introduced a DCI laboratory report analyzing the contents and establishing the weight of the suspected marijuana packages found in Garcia's van. A jury found Garcia guilty of possession with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp.
Iowa Code section 691.2 provides in pertinent part:
Any report, or copy of a report, or the findings of the criminalistics laboratory shall be received in evidence, if determined to be relevant, in any court, preliminary hearing, grand jury proceeding, civil proceeding, administrative hearing, and forfeiture proceeding in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the employee or technician of the criminalist laboratory who accomplished the requested analysis, comparison, or identification had testified in person.
The statute further provides that upon the request of a party or party's attorney, an employee or technician of the agency can be called to testify in person. Garcia made no such request. On appeal Garcia argues the Iowa statute violates his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him under both the United States and Iowa Constitutions.
On appeal, Garcia acknowledges that the Iowa Supreme Court has previously rejected challenges to the constitutionality of Iowa Code section 691.2. State v. Davison, 245 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1976); State v. Kramer, 231 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1975). Garcia invites this court to reexamine the issue in light of the reasoning of a recent Illinois Supreme Court decision holding a similar statute unconstitutional for violating a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. People v. McClanahan, 729 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. 2000). While we recognize that a split of authority may exist regarding the constitutionality of these statutes, we decline the defendant's invitation to overrule existing precedent. Based on our highest court's reasoning in Davison and Kramer, we conclude that the introduction of state laboratory results without accompanying testimony does not violate a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses. We affirm Garcia's convictions.
AFFIRMED.