Although not a child sexual assault case, Hall-Haught is important since its’ holding will apply to DNA testing, which is sometimes present in child molest cases.
In a very serious vehicular assault case, the trial court held it was not a violation of the U.S. Sixth Amendment or Wash. Const. Art. I, § 22 for forensic text results (THC – the chemical responsible for marijuana’s intoxication) obtained by a lab technician who performed the actual testing be admitted into evidence through the testimony of a laboratory supervisor. The supervisor had independently reviewed the testing and the results. The supervisor testified to her own opinion about the results.
Ms. Hall-Haught was involved in a head-on collision; drug paraphernalia was strewn across the roadway due to the impact. She had bloodshot eyes at the hospital. The Washington State Trooper present applied for and obtained a search warrant for a blood draw. The results appeared to show a THC level well above the legal limit for presumed intoxication. At trial, Ms. Hall-Haught argued her right of confrontation was violated when the forensic analyst who performed the toxicology examination and produced the report was not called, in lien of her supervisor.
The U.S. Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and the WA Constitution provide that a defendant in a criminal prosecution shall have the right to confront or meet the ‘witness against them.’ According to the Hall-Haught court, Washington “previously wrestled” with a confrontation clause challenge when forensic test results are accepted without testimony of the actual lab analyst. Formerly, Washington Courts relied on an ‘indicia of reliability test,’ stemming from State v Lui 179 Wn.2d 457, 482(2014), which the lower courts relied on here. The Hall-Haught court held the lab toxicology report was testimonial, since its “primary purpose was creating an out-of-court statement as a substitute for trial testimonies” citing Bullcoming v New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647, 669(2022). The report “would lead an objective-witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Crawford v Washington 541 U.S. 36, 52(2004).
The WSP toxicology lab report was admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted (i.e. Hall-Haught had cannabis in her system and it was a contributing factor to a serious collision). The supervisor’s testimony concerned the accuracy of the testing procedures: “I believe [the extraction procedures] were followed correctly.” The supervisors opinion was admitted for its truth, and predicated on the non testifying technician’s toxicology report. The testimony was admitted for its truth.
The WA Supreme Court held Ms. Hall-Haught’s confrontation rights were violated because the actual analyst who did the testing and wrote the report was “the real witness”, and did not testify. Her supervisor did. The case was revered and remanded.