State v. Moss

2 Citing cases

  1. U.S.A. v. Washington

    498 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2007)   Cited 111 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that machine-generated data from testing defendant's blood sample was not testimonial statement

    For these reasons, the test results are testimonial. See State v. March, 216 S.W.3d 663, 666 (Mo. 2007) (lab report identifying crack cocaine is testimonial); City of Las Vegas v. Walsh, 120 Nev. 392, 91 P.3d 591, 595 (2004) (affidavit of nurse who drew defendant's blood is testimonial); State v. Moss, 215 Ariz. 385, 160 P.3d 1143, 1149 (Ct.App. 2007) ("We conclude that the proposed testimony of [former laboratory director] reporting [defendant's] blood test results would constitute testimonial evidence within the meaning of Crawford."); People v. Rogers, 8 A.D.3d 888, 891-92, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393 (N.Y.App.Div. 2004) (admission of blood alcohol test violated Confrontation Clause); Johnson v. State, 929 So.2d 4, 7 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2005) ("lab report prepared pursuant to police investigation and admitted to establish an element of a crime is testimonial hearsay"); State v. Crager, 164 Ohio App.3d 816, 844 N.E.2d 390, 397 (2005) (lab reports and DNA reports are testimonial if they "are pre-pared solely for prosecution"); State v. Miller, 208 Or.App. 424, 144 P.3d 1052, 1060 (2006) (lab report concluding urine contained methamphetamine is testimonial); cf. United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45, 80-81 (2d Cir. 1977) (concluding, pre- Crawford, that admitting chemist report against the defendant could violate his Confrontation Clause right).

  2. State v. Moss

    173 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. 2007)

    November 29, 2007. Prior report: App., 215 Ariz. 385, 160 P.3d 1143. ORDERED: Petition for Review = DENIED.