Legal Opinion

Martin v. State

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided February 4, 2013No. 149, 2012PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEELE, Chief Justice.

In this appeal, we consider whether a Superior Court judge’s decision to admit a blood analysis report without the testing chemist’s testimony violated Defendant-Appellant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. Here, the testifying laboratory manager who ultimately certified the report testified before the jury, but the manager neither observed nor performed the test. We hold that the absent analyst’s testimonial representations were admitted for their truth on an issue central to the case, which violated the Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  4. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Bullcoming v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 2011

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State of Tennessee v. Jessie DotsonTennessee Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Smith v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2024
  3. State v. Katherine Lea StanfieldIdaho Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. State v. Julie L. Michaels (072106)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API