STATE v. WEST (2024)

Writs were granted in this matter for the sole purpose of addressing defendant's contention that the court of appeal erred in allowing Dr. Michael Defatta, St. Tammany Parish Coroner's Office Chief Pathologist and Medical Director for Forensic Operations, to testify about the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Ann Lee, the forensic pathologist from the St. Tammany Parish Coroner's Office who performed the autopsy, an alleged violation of his right to confront his accusers. In finding no confrontation clause ¹ violation, the court of appeal adopted a bright line rule of admissibility, stating:

[W]e now hold that a doctor's testimony to an autopsy report created by a different doctor does not violate the defendant's right to confrontation. Autopsy reports contain routine, descriptive, and non-analytical information. Unlike the sworn affidavits contemplated in Melendez-Diaz,2 autopsy reports are not testimonial in nature.

State v. West, 23-0286, p. 13 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/27/23), 2023 WL 8923503 (unpub'd) (internal citations omitted).

The adoption of a per se rule of admissibility is unnecessary and not required by confrontation clause jurisprudence. Id., 23-0286 at 1 (Miller, J., concurring in part) (“[I]nsofar as the majority opinion pronounces a per se rule of admission, I believe this conclusion should be avoided.”). Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor this court have adopted a bright line rule with respect to autopsy reports. In fact, this court has acknowledged that the case circumstances and the evidence in dispute tend to dictate the inquiry. See, State v. Mullins, 14-2260, pp. 6-8 (La. 1/27/16), 188 So.3d 164, 170-71 (citing Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 56, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012), and State v. Bolden, 11-2435 (La. 10/26/12), 108 So.3d 1159); see also, State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185, 1190 (La. 1977) (probable confrontation violation where “an unsworn out-of-court statement by a [doctor other than the one testifying] was admitted to prove a crucial issue in the case.”). We adopt the view that the sprawling confrontation clause jurisprudence favors individualized assessments over per se rules about what is testimonial.

In this case, even if the autopsy report is testimonial, any confrontation clause violation for allowing Dr. Defatta to testify to its conclusions is still subject to harmless error analysis. See, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680-81, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); State v. Broadway, 96-2659, p.24 (La. 10/19/99), 753 So.2d 801, 817. An error is generally harmless unless it “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).

Here, the defendant neither argues nor demonstrates that Dr. Defatta's testimony had any substantial or injurious effect on the defense because the cause and manner of death were not controverted. See, Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239; see also, State v. Russell, 42,479, p.16 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/07), 966 So.2d 154, 165-66 (purported error of admitting coroner's report without examining physician was harmless because report was cumulative evidence of victim's uncontroverted death and cause of death). Thus, under a harmless error analysis, defendant fails to show his entitlement to relief. The primary dispute centered on the perpetrator's identity. Therefore, defendant cannot show harm from Dr. Defatta testifying about the autopsy, which was performed by a doctor under Dr. Defatta's supervision, and not by him personally.

Defendant's related claim that Dr. Defatta's testimony exceeded the scope of his knowledge also lacks merit. Under La. C.E. art. 703, a witness qualified as an expert can give opinion testimony that includes facts or data perceived by or made known to him at or before the trial. Those facts need not be admissible alone in order to form the basis for the opinion. Defendant argues Dr. Defatta was improperly influenced by photos of the victim and forensic findings made by others. However, he fails to show that the expert gave any opinions outside of his expertise or that any alleged error caused any harm or prejudice to defendant's defense.

We reject the court of appeal's adoption of a bright line rule for the admissibility of autopsy reports. In all other respects, the decision of the court of appeal is affirmed.

WRIT GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED; AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The Louisiana Constitution likewise guarantees the accused the right “to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him.” La. Const. art. I, § 16.

2.   Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009).

PER CURIAM