Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


State v. Glass

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 12-07-2011
Case #: A143965
Brewer, C.J. for the Court; & Edmonds, S.J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A143965.pdf

Constitutional Law: A procedure that requires a defendant to object to the admission of a laboratory report before trial, and subsequently allows the author of the report to testify after the objection, does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Defendant was convicted of various drug-related offenses. On appeal, defendant argued that the state violated the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment when the trial court admitted evidence of a laboratory report indicating that the substance seized from him was cocaine. Defendant argued that because a defendant must object to the admission of a substance report before trial, and that subsequently the author of the report will be allowed to testify, that this procedure unconstitutionally shifted the burden to the defendant, rather than the state, to bring the state’s witnesses into court. The Court of appeals disagreed with defendant and affirmed the trial court, finding that previous case law allowed such “notice-and-demand” statutes, and that they do not violate the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Affirmed.