U.S. Supreme Court denies business record exemption of evidence of DUI bloodtest. A witness with knowledge must present the evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BULLCOMING v. NEW MEXICO
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
No. 09–10876. Argued March 2, 2011—Decided June 23, 2011
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause gives the accused “[i]nall criminal prosecutions, . . . the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 59, this Court held that the Clause permits admission of “[t]estimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial . . . only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.”
Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. ___, the Court declined to create a “forensic evidence” exception to Crawford, holding that a forensic laboratory report, created specifically to serve as evidence in a criminal proceeding, ranked as “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes.
Absent stipulation, the Court ruled, the prosecution may not introduce such a report without offering a live witness competent to testify to the truth of the report’s statements. 557 U. S., at ___.