Section 98 Admissibility of Lab Reports

• Library: DWI Experts and the Science of Chemical Tests 2014

Under State v. March, 216 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. banc 2007), in Missouri, laboratory reports are no longer admissible without the supporting witness (admitting lab report of a chemist violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment as in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)). The Supreme Court has continued to support the examination of the person doing the testing after Crawford, 541 U.S. at 36. Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., 557 U.S. 305, 330 (2009); Bullcoming v. N.M., 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011). This is still a very active area of the law, and there is an almost constant stream of cases to more narrowly define how the rule of law affects this type of laboratory report evidence.

In Crawford, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed earlier precedent concerning admissible hearsay. The Court held that, if evidence is to be presented in a criminal prosecution and the evidence is testimonial in nature, the individual—and not just a certified report—should be present in court so the maker of the report can be cross-examined. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 36. This means that the State can no longer just produce a lab report without producing the maker of that report to be cross-examined by the defense.

Missouri followed Crawford in Ma...