## Facts

- Donald Bullcoming was arrested for aggravated DWI after a collision; an officer observed signs of intoxication, and Bullcoming failed field sobriety tests and refused a breath test.
- Police obtained a warrant for a blood draw; the sample was sent to the state laboratory for blood-alcohol testing.
- Analyst Curtis Caylor performed the test and signed a formal laboratory report certifying a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.21 and certifying proper sample handling, procedures, and equipment function.
- At trial, the prosecution did not call Caylor and offered no showing that he was unavailable or that Bullcoming had a prior chance to cross-examine him.
- The State instead called another analyst, Gerasimos Razatos, who was familiar with lab procedures but did not perform or observe the test on Bullcoming’s sample.
- The trial court admitted the certified report over a Confrontation Clause objection, and Bullcoming was convicted; state appellate courts affirmed, reasoning that the report was admissible and that surrogate testimony sufficed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Confrontation Clause allows the prosecution to introduce a testimonial forensic laboratory certification through an analyst who neither signed the certification nor performed or observed the testing, when the certifying analyst does not testify.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the certified forensic laboratory report was testimonial and could not be introduced through “surrogate” testimony by a different analyst who did not perform or observe the test.
- Because the State did not produce the certifying analyst, did not show unavailability, and did not establish a prior opportunity for cross-examination, admission of the certificate violated the Sixth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Testimonial statements may be admitted against a criminal defendant only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
- A formal forensic laboratory certificate prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.
- The defendant is entitled to confront the analyst who made the testimonial certification, not a substitute witness who can testify only about general laboratory procedures.
- Characterizing the certifying analyst as a “scrivener” does not avoid confrontation where the certificate includes case-specific factual assertions (e.g., sample integrity, protocol compliance, equipment status).
- Hearsay exceptions such as business or public records do not control the Confrontation Clause analysis when the record was created to establish facts for trial.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a prosecution may not prove a criminal fact by introducing a testimonial forensic lab certification through an analyst who neither performed nor observed the test; absent unavailability and prior cross-examination, the Sixth Amendment requires testimony from the certifying analyst.


Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011)