Bullcoming v. New Mexico

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Evidence

564 U.S. 647 (2011)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencesurrogate analyst testimonyConfrontation Clausetestimonial statementsforensic reportssurrogate testimonyanalyst certificationcross-examination

Facts

After Bullcoming was arrested for DWI, police obtained a warrant for a blood draw and sent his sample to the New Mexico Scientific Laboratory Division for BAC testing. Analyst Curtis Caylor tested the sample and signed a report certifying a BAC of 0.21, as well as certifying that the sample seal was intact, the numbers matched, and the proper procedures were followed. At trial, the State did not call Caylor, stating only that he had been placed on unpaid leave, and instead introduced the report through Gerasimos Razatos, an analyst familiar with the lab's procedures who had neither performed, observed, nor reviewed Caylor's test. Bullcoming objected that admitting the report without Caylor violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

Issue

May the prosecution introduce a testimonial forensic laboratory report through the in-court testimony of an analyst who did not sign the certification and did not perform or observe the test described in it? More specifically, does such surrogate testimony satisfy the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause?

Rule

If an out-of-court statement is testimonial, it may not be introduced against a criminal defendant unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that witness. A forensic analyst's certification prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is testimonial, and the defendant has the right to confront the particular analyst who made the certification; surrogate testimony by another analyst who neither performed nor observed the test does not suffice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony prosecution in Phoenix, the State offers a signed laboratory report stating that a white powder taken from Leo Mendez's backpack tested positive for methamphetamine. The prosecution calls Nina Patel, a chemist from the same lab who knows the standard testing procedures but neither performed, observed, nor reviewed the testing of Leo's sample.

Over Leo's Confrontation Clause objection, is the report admissible through Nina's testimony?

Explanation. The report was prepared for use in a criminal prosecution and is testimonial. The State may not introduce a testimonial forensic certification through a substitute analyst who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test. Reliability or procedural familiarity is not enough; confrontation is with the particular analyst who made the statements unless that analyst is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that analyst.