Case Brief Essay

Submitted By acast100
Words: 1755
Pages: 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF WISOTA

DUNCAN BLOOM, Petitioner
V.
STATE OF WISOTA,
Respondent

RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS BRIEF AND CHIEF

On Appeal from the State of Wisota Court of Appeals

ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED

AMBROSIO E. CASTELLANO
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
PO BOX 114
SERAFINA, NM 87701
(505) 470-7260
CONSEL FOR THE RESPODENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….. 3 I. Nature of the Case and Course Proceeding………………………………. 4 II. Summary of the Facts……………………………………………………. 5 III. Arguments………………………………………………………………. 5 A. The event permit submitted electronically to the WSU police department, is not testimonial statement for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause……………………………………………………………….. 6 B. The admission of the non-testifying laboratory analyst’s scientific findings through the in-court testimony of another laboratory analyst who did not perform the scientific tests does not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause……………………………………………………………….. 7
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………... 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………… 9

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. at 2539-40………………………………….. 8

United States v. Spencer, 592 F.3d 866, 879 (8th Cir. 2010)…………………………….. 7

United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 230 (4th Cir. 2007)………………………… 8

I. Nature of the Case and Course Proceedings The Nature of this appeal involves two issues that pertain to the District and Appeals court decision against the Petitioner, Duncan Bloom. At the pretrial conference on August 8, 2009, the prosecution informed defense counsel that it intended to call Hazel Peters, another State Crime Lab chemical analyst, to testify as to the results of the chemical tests, as O’Dell had been laid off and no longer worked for the State Crime Lab. The Defense counsel filed a Motion to exclude Peters’s testimony. The Defense counsel argued that substituting Peters’s testimony for O’Dell’s would violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Honorable Judge Gallagher denied the motion. The Jury trial began on September 24, 2009, here the counsel for the defense cross examined O’Dell and WSU police officer Leah Santos. After jury deliberation Duncan Bloom was found guilty of felony possession of marijuana by the jury. He was subsequently sentenced to 18months in prison and a fine of $10,000. Bloom appealed his conviction to the Wisota Court of Appeals. In the Wisota Court of Appeals the defense counsel appealed conviction for felony possession of marijuana, on the basis evidence introduced by the prosecution at trial –an event permit request provided to the police, and the testimony of a state crime lab employee regarding a chemical substance test. The Petitioner alleged the admission of this evidence violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause. The Wisota State of Appeals reviewed the case and upheld the trial court’s decision in the felony possession of marijuana and the sentence of 18 months in prison and a fine or $10,000.

II. Summary of the Facts The Wisota State University (WSU) campus features a large public space that has long been a popular location for large events. One of the more infamous events is “Mayday,” an unofficial campus peace rally held annually on May 1. Mayday originally began as a Vietnam War protest. In the 1970s, Mayday became associated with the so-called hippie drug culture, and many continue to see the event as an excuse to smoke marijuana in public. During the Mayday festivities on May 1, 2009, a crowd member threw a smoke bomb towards the podium just before 12:30pm. Officer Leah Santos, a member of the WSU PD, approached the podium in an attempt to locate the perpetrator. When she stepped onto the stage, she saw a large plastic Ziploc bag full of what appeared to be marijuana on the ground behind the podium. Officer Leah…