In a recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision, the Court held that a stand-in can lay an adequate foundation to permit the admission of evidence that they had no first-hand information about. It was a great decision for prosecutors and was sure to help make prosecutions involving blood-alcohol samples more efficient and less expensive. However, the decision didn't settle well in terms of constitutional norms considering the landmark decision in Crawford v. Washington. In Crawford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution affords each person the right to confront and cross examine their accusers. In turn, the State cannot avoid having to produce laboratory technicians in cases involving blood-alcohol draws by simply calling a stand-in to testify.
This morning, I discovered that the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision has been accepted for certification by the United States Supreme Court. I will certainly keep you all posted on the outcome, or you can follow it from the U.S. Supreme Court link on my website. The case is styled: Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 09-10876.