Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2011
Full case name	Donald Bullcoming v. State of New Mexico
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan

Bullcoming v. New Mexico is a significant Confrontation Clause case decided by the United States Supreme Court. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court considered the issue whether a defendant's Confrontation Clause rights extent to a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine. In a five to four decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the second surrogate analyst could not testify about the testimonial statements in the forensic report of the certifying analyst under the Confrontation Clause.

The case follows a line of decisions, including Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Davis v. Washington (2006), that altered the Court's interpretation of the Confrontation Clause guarantee and clarified its application only to "testimonial" statements.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.

Procedural History

The cases was decided on June 23, 2011. The oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place on March 2, 2011. The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued its decision, 147 N.M. 487, 226 P.3d 1, on February 12, 2010.

External References

• Bullcoming v. New Mexico Resource Page Containing background information and links to key materials on the case.
• Slip Opinion from the Supreme Court