10 N.Y.3d 136 (2008)
r
Forensic reports are testimonial and subject to the Confrontation Clause if they are prepared for prosecutorial purposes and are accusatory, directly linking the defendant to the crime.
r
Summary
r
This case addresses whether DNA and latent fingerprint comparison reports prepared by nontestifying experts are testimonial statements under Crawford v. Washington. The Court of Appeals held that fingerprint comparison reports prepared by a detective were testimonial because they were accusatory and intended for prosecutorial use, but their admission was harmless error. The Court found a DNA report containing raw data was not testimonial because it wasn’t directly accusatory and the analyst did not compare the DNA profile to the defendant.
r
Facts
r
In People v. Rawlins, the defendant was convicted of burglary based on fingerprint evidence. A fingerprint examiner, Detective Connolly, matched latent prints from several burglarized locations to the defendant’s inked fingerprint card. Reports prepared by a different detective, Beatty, who did not testify, were admitted as business records, even though they also matched the defendant’s fingerprints to prints found at crime scenes.
r
In People v. Meekins, the defendant was convicted of sodomy, sexual abuse, and robbery based on DNA evidence. A private laboratory, Gene Screen, prepared a report containing DNA testing results from the complainant’s rape kit. This report, containing raw data, was admitted through the testimony of two experts, neither of whom performed the original testing. The lab sent the report to the Medical Examiner’s office, who found a match to the defendant after checking a database.
r
Procedural History
r
In Rawlins, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the reports qualified as nontestimonial business records. In Meekins, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the DNA report was admissible as a business record and did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights.
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether latent fingerprint comparison reports prepared by a nontestifying detective are testimonial statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.
r
2. Whether a DNA report containing raw data and prepared by a private laboratory is a testimonial statement subject to the Confrontation Clause.
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because latent fingerprint reports are accusatory, prepared for prosecutorial purposes, and are the functional equivalent of testimony. However, the admission was harmless error because a testifying expert reached the same conclusion.
r
2. No, because the DNA report contained raw data and was not directly accusatory, as the lab did not compare the DNA profile to the defendant’s. The report was the product of objective, scientific testing.
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Confrontation Clause, based on Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, is aimed at preventing the use of ex parte accusatory statements as evidence against the accused. It rejected a bright-line rule that all business records are nontestimonial, especially police business records. The court emphasized that the focus should be on whether a statement is a surrogate for accusatory in-court testimony.
r
Regarding fingerprint reports, the court found that Beatty’s reports were testimonial because they were inherently accusatory, offered to prove an element of the crimes, and the purpose of the report was to apprehend a perpetrator. “In effect, Beatty was `testifying’ through his reports that, in his opinion, defendant is the same person who committed the burglaries.”
r
Regarding the DNA report, the court found that it was not testimonial because Gene Screen only generated raw data and did not compare the data to the defendant’s DNA. The testing procedures were objective and not discretionary, and the government’s involvement had no impact on the test’s results. Furthermore, the documents were not directly accusatory.