STATE v. MORGAN (2025)

Writ application granted. The trial court erred in granting the State's motion in limine to present surrogate analyst testimony regarding the report and/or underlying data generated by an absent analyst of evidence gathered by police after defendant's arrest when that analyst is allegedly unavailable and where defendant has not had an opportunity to cross examine that particular analyst. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004); Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009); Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011). In reaching that decision, the trial court failed to consider the actual evidence about which the surrogate analyst plans to testify and thus failed to address whether it constitutes “testimonial hearsay,” triggering the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. See Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 144 S.Ct. 1785, 219 L.Ed.2d 420 (2024); see also State v. Mullins, 14-2260, 14-2310 (La. 1/27/16), 188 So.3d 164; La.C.E. 803(8)(b)(iii). The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

PER CURIAM: