My colleague Joe Hyde blogged last week about the Court of Appeals’ determination in State v. Tate, __ N.C. App. ___ (June 18, 2025), that the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on a theory that was not alleged in the indictment. I’m returning to Tate this week to discuss another aspect of the Court’s holding, namely its determination that the defendant’s confrontation clause rights were not violated when an expert from the State Crime Lab testified to an opinion that was based in part on DNA test results generated by private third-party laboratory. This post will unpack the court’s analysis of that issue and will consider what it might mean for testimony by substitute analysts more generally.
nontestimonial
Summer Confrontation Clause Cases
This past June saw a flurry of Confrontation Clause cases from the appellate division: State v. Miller, ___ N.C. App. ___ (June 20, 2017), temp. stay allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (July 3, 2017); State v. McKiver, ___ N.C. ___ (June 9, 2017); and State v. Clonts, ___ N.C. App. ___ (June 20, 2017), temp. stay allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (July 9, 2017) (a sprawling 84 page opinion including the dissent). These make for some great summer reading, at least to me. Because the cases touch on various aspects of Confrontation Clause law (and just in case your summer reading interests vary from mine), I wanted to briefly summarize them.
Special Rules for the Admission of Hospital Medical Records
Rule 45. This rule surprised me. Before I learned about it, I assumed that when a party sought to introduce hospital medical records at trial, a records custodian appeared in court to testify that the records met the requirements for the business records hearsay exception. Turns out, however, that because of this rule, custodians of … Read more