State v. Navarette

Supreme Court of New Mexico · 2013 · Evidence

2013-NMSC-003 (2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseExpert testimonyAutopsy reportsHearsayCrawfordBullcomingWilliams

Facts

The State called Dr. Ross Zumwalt to testify about the cause and manner of Reynaldo Ornelas's death, the significance of the entry and exit wounds, and whether the gun was fired from within two feet of the victim. Dr. Zumwalt neither performed nor observed the autopsy; Dr. Mary Dudley performed it as part of a homicide investigation, and two investigating officers attended. Over Defendant's Confrontation Clause objection, Dr. Zumwalt testified from the autopsy report that no soot or stippling was found on the body or clothing and repeated the report's assertion that this was a distant-range shooting. The prosecution used that testimony to argue that the shooter could not have been the driver, making the autopsy-based testimony important to the disputed identity of the shooter.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits a forensic pathologist who neither performed nor observed an autopsy to relate subjective observations recorded in the autopsy report as the basis for trial opinions. More specifically, the question was whether those autopsy statements were testimonial and offered for their truth when conveyed to the jury through a surrogate expert.

Rule

An out-of-court statement that is both testimonial and offered for the truth of the matter asserted may not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. A statement is testimonial when the declarant primarily intends to establish some fact with the understanding that the statement may be used in a criminal prosecution. Statements disclosed to the fact-finder as the basis for an expert's opinion are offered for their truth, and there is no meaningful Confrontation Clause distinction between factual observations and judgment-laden conclusions. Accordingly, autopsy reports regarding violent deaths are testimonial, and a surrogate expert may not relay the report's subjective observations to the jury absent confrontation.

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 murder trial in Albuquerque, the prosecution calls Dr. Elena Marquez, a forensic pathologist who did not perform the victim’s autopsy. The autopsy was conducted during a police homicide investigation, and Dr. Marquez tells the jury that the original examiner recorded no powder tattooing on the victim’s neck and therefore the shot came from more than two feet away.

The defendant objects under the Confrontation Clause. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The objection should be sustained. Under the majority rule, statements in an autopsy report from a violent-death investigation are testimonial when made to establish facts potentially usable in prosecution. When a surrogate expert tells the jury those observations as the basis for an opinion, the statements are offered for their truth. Because the original examiner did not testify and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination, the testimony violates the Confrontation Clause.