State v. Samantha Hall-Haught. Unpublished (publication denied).  

On July 31, 2023, Division One of the COA rejects the defendant’s challenges to her Island County Superior Court conviction for vehicular assault. The Hall-Haught Opinion’s opening paragraph summarizes the ruling on the main issue in the case (Sixth Amendment confrontation right) as follows:

On appeal, [Hall-Haught] contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to confront the witnesses against her when lab results indicating THC in her system were admitted into evidence without the testimony of the technician who performed the test. Because the supervisor who testified and was available for cross examination had independently reviewed the testing and the results and testified to her own opinions about them, we conclude that Hall-Haught’s confrontation rights were not violated.

Key excerpts from the Hall-Haught Opinion include the following: In Washington, expert witnesses may testify to their own conclusions, even when they rely on data prepared by non-testifying technicians. State v. Lui, 179 Wn.2d 457, 483, 315 P.3d 493 (2014). Because Harris testified to her own independent conclusion, HallHaught’s confrontation rights were not violated." Legal Update - 11 July 2023 . . . . While the testimony of technicians “may be desirable, . . . the question is whether it is constitutionally required.” Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 480. “[A] break in the chain of custody might detract from the credibility of an expert analysis of some piece of evidence, [but] this break in the chain does not violate the confrontation clause.” Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 479. Thus, only the “ultimate expert analysis, and not the lab work that leads into that analysis,” is subject to the confrontation clause requirement. Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 490. . . . . Here, as in [City of Seattle v. Wiggins, 23 Wn. App. 2d 401 (2022)], Harris testified that she was a supervisor and had reviewed the report prepared by a different forensic scientist, rather than being present during the testing. However, unlike in Wiggins, Harris specifically testified that she “came to [her] own independent conclusion” following her review of all the data in the file. Thus, Harris was not merely “parrot[ing] the conclusions” of her subordinates, which is not permitted by the confrontation clause. Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 483. Instead, she was “rely[ing] on technical data prepared by others when reaching [her] own conclusions,” which is permitted without the testimony of each analyst. Lui, 179 Wn.2d at 483.

The Opinion in State v. Hall-Haught can be accessed on the Internet at: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/842471.pdf ************************