Jenkins v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00203-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-KA-00203-COA ; 2010-KA-00203-COA ; 2010-CT-00203-SCT ; 2010-CT-00203-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-04-2012 Opinion Author: Carlson, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of controlled substance - Right to confrontation - Cross-examination of primary analyst - Testimonial statements - Unavailability of witness Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Randolph, Lamar and Pierce, JJ. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J., Chandler and King, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-16-2009 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: John C. Gargiulo Disposition: The Appellant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2402-2008-18 |
|
| Note: | The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court for the Second Judicial District of Harrison County are affirmed as the Supreme Court held that the supervising analyst who did not conduct analysis on the substance was competent to testify in place of the actual analyst under the Confrontation Clause. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert L. Jenkins |
PHILLIP BROADHEAD, OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Possession of controlled substance - Right to confrontation - Cross-examination of primary analyst - Testimonial statements - Unavailability of witness |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Jenkins was convicted for possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under the habitual-offender statute. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred by allowing the laboratory supervisor to testify in place of the analyst who had performed the substance testing. Jenkins argues that his right to confrontation was violated because he was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the analyst who had performed the testing on the substance and authored the forensic report admitted as evidence against him. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause bars the admission of testimonial statements made by a witness who does not appear at trial, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Forensic laboratory reports created specifically to serve as evidence against the accused at trial are testimonial statements governed by the Confrontation Clause. However, there are instances in which someone other than the primary analyst who conducted the test can testify regarding the results. To determine if a witness satisfies the defendant’s right to confrontation, the Court asks whether the witness has intimate knowledge of the particular report and whether the witness was actively involved in the production of the report at issue. In this case, the testifying witness was the laboratory supervisor. While he was not involved in the actual testing, he reviewed the report for accuracy and signed the report as the “case technical reviewer.” He was able to explain competently the types of tests that were performed and the analysis that was conducted. He performed “procedural checks” by reviewing all of the data submitted to ensure that the data supported the conclusions contained in the report. Based on the data reviewed, he reached his own conclusion that the substance tested was cocaine. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing him to testify. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
