People v. Lopez

California Court of Appeal Aug 31, 2009 No. D052885Published

Before: McDonald

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the admission of a forensic blood-alcohol laboratory report without the testimony of the analyst who prepared it violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Following Melendez-Diaz, such reports are testimonial hearsay and inadmissible absent the analyst's unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

Issues

Whether the admission of a forensic blood-alcohol laboratory report without the testimony of the analyst violates the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
Whether the error in admitting the laboratory report was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“laboratory reports of the type presented in Geier, and in the instant case, are testimonial hearsay evidence within the meaning of Crawford and are inadmissible in a criminal proceeding”

“it was error under Crawford and Melendez to admit into evidence the blood-alcohol report created by Peña.”

177 Cal.App.4th 202 (2009) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

VIRGINIA HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. D052885. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

August 31, 2009. [204] Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne McGinnis and Gil Gonzalez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

McDONALD, J.

A jury convicted Virginia Hernandez Lopez of committing vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (b). Lopez appeals, contending the admission into evidence of a blood-alcohol laboratory report violated her constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses by allowing testimonial hearsay evidence prohibited under Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 [158 L.Ed.2d 177, 124 S.Ct. 1354]. We reverse the judgment.

On May 11, 2009, this court filed an opinion affirming the judgment in this case. On July 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court granted a petition for review and issued the following order: "The cause is transferred to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, with directions to vacate its judgment and to reconsider the matter in light of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (June 25, 2009, No. 07-591) 557 U.S. ___ [174 L.Ed.2d 314, 129 S.Ct. 2527]." In compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, the opinion filed May 11, 2009, is vacated and we issue this new opinion.

FACTS

On August 18, 2007, Lopez worked the evening shift at a restaurant in Julian, California. During the evening, she drank at least three shots of tequila. Shortly after consuming the last shot, Lopez left the restaurant and drove westbound on State Route 78, a narrow, curving road. At the same

People v. Lopez

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief