## IN TH E COU RT OF CRIM INA L APP EALS

OF TEXAS

N O

. P D

- 0 1 7 2

- 2 1

D U S T I N A A R O N H U B B A R D

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E S E V E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

M I L L S C O U N T Y

W A L K E R

, J

. , fi l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

.

D I S S E N T I N G O P I N I O N

W i t h al l due respe ct

, I di s s en t t o t h e Co urt ’ s deci s i o n t o day t o ref us e A ppel l an t ’ s pet i t i o n f o r

di s cret i o n ary rev i ew.

Dus t i n A aro n Hub b ard, A

ppel l an t

, was ch arged wi

t h del i v ery o f b et wee n 1 an d 4 gram s o f

m et h am ph et am i n e. A t t ri al

, l ab an al

y s t K aren Dei s s t es t i f

i ed o ut s i de t h e j ury ’ s prese n ce t h at t wo o t h er

an al y s t s at t h e l ab wei gh ed t h e s am pl es an d perf

o rm ed t h e t es t s i

n t h i s cas e. Dei s s t h en rev i ewe d t h e

l ab repo rt

, an al

y zed t he t es t resul

t s h erse l f

, an d m ade s ure t h at t h e wei gh t s l i s t ed i n t h e repo rt

co rr ect l y ref l ect ed t h e wei gh

t s f ro m an o t h er an al

y s t ’ s l ab s l i

p. Sh e an d t h e l a b d i r e c t o r s i gn ed t h e2

repo rt

. Dei s s agreed wi

t h t h e pro s ecut o r t h at “

part o f [h er] j o b i

n v o l v es t aki n g raw dat a an d us i

n g

t h at raw dat a t o draw co n cl us i o n s

. ” Sh e co n cede d t h at s h e di d n o t s t an d o v er t h e an al y s t s an d wat ch 1

t h em wo rk, b ut s h e di d l o o k at t h e resul t s o f eac h m ach i

n e h erse l f —t h e raw dat a—an d m ade s ure t h at

“ ev ery t h i n g o n t h i s r epo rt [was] co rr ect

. ” Sh e agreed t h at

, i n rev i ewi n g t h e raw dat a, s h e 2

“ perso n al l y ” l o o ked at “ t h e wav es an d co m pare[d] t h em t o t h e kn o wn l i b rar y

, ” an d i

n do i n g s o

, s h e

“ reach [ed] [h er] o wn co n cl us i o n ab o ut wh at t h e sub s t an ce i s

. ” 3

Def en s e co un s el argued t h at adm i s s i o n o f t h e l ab repo rt an d Dei s s ’ s t es t i mo n y v i o l at ed t h e

Co n f ro n t at i o n Cl aus e b eca

us e h e di d n o t h av e “ t h e t es t i mo n y o f t h e an al

y s t wh o act ual l

y perf o rm ed

t h e t es t ” an d t h e ev i den ce was t es t i m o n i al

. T h e t ri al co urt o v err ul ed t h e o b j ect i o n

. 4

Dei s s t h en t es t i f

i ed b ef o re t h e j ury t h at b o t h s am

pl es t es t ed po s i

t i v e f o r m et h am

ph et am i n e an d

t h at t h e t o t al wei gh

t was 3. 85 gram s

. Duri

n g h er t es t i

m o n y

, t h e t ri al co urt adm

i t t ed S t at e’ s E x

h i b i t

16, t h e l ab repo rt

, s ub

j ect t o def

en s e co un s el ’ s prev i o us o b j ect i o n s

.

T h e j ury f o un d A ppel l an t gui l t y

, an d t h e t ri al co urt s en

t en ced h i m t o 40 y ears

.

A ppel l an t argued o n appea l t h at t h e t ri al co urt err ed i n o v errul i n g h i s Co n f

ro n t at i o n Cl aus e

o b j ect i o n a s t o bo t h t h e l ab repo rt an d Dei s s ’ s t es t i mo n y

. Speci f i call y

, as t o t h e wei gh

t o f t h e

m et h am ph et am i n e, h e ar gued:

Dei s s h ad n o perso n al kn o wl edge ab o ut t h e wei gh t o f t h e m et h am

ph et am i n e an d t h ere

was n o “ raw dat a” s h e co ul d us e t o co m e t o h er o w n i n depen den t co n cl us i o n

. Sh e

t es t i f i e d t h at s h e kn ew t h e wei gh t was co rr ect i

n t h e repo rt b eca

us e i t was wri t t en

Re p. R. v o l

. 4, 104. 1

Id. at 135. 2

Id. at 139. 3

Id. at 142. 43

do wn o n a l ab s l i

p b y t h e an al

y s t wh o wei gh ed i

t

. . . Dei s s co n f

i rm ed t h at s h e h ad n o

reco l l ect i o n o f s eei

n g t h e s ub s t an ce wei ghe d, an d t h at s h e di d n o t rewei gh i t

. . . A ppel l an t was co n v i ct ed o f a m o re s eri o us cri m e b eca us e o f t h e wei gh

t

. See Hea l

t h

& Saf et y Co de, § 481. 112. He was en t i t l ed t o co n f

ro n t t h e ab s en

t an al y s t o n t h at

i s s ue. 5

T h e co urt o f appea l s di s agreed an d f o un d t h i s cas e s i

m i l a r t o o u r o pi

n i o n i n P ar edes

. Hubbar

d v.

State

, No

. 07-20- 00183-CR, 2021 W L 521212, at *2 (T ex

. A pp. —A m ari l l o F eb

. 11, 2020) (m em

.

o p.

, n o t des i gn at ed f

o r pub l i ca t i o n) ( c i t i

n g P ar edes v. State

, 462 S. W

. 3d 510 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp.

2015))

. T h e co urt o f appea l s f o un d t h at

, wh i l e o t h er an al y s t s co n duct ed t h e t es t s

, Dei s s ’ s repo rt was

“ deri v ed b y i n depen den

t an al y s i s o f raw dat a gen erat ed b y a m ach i n e.” Id. T h e c o urt o f appea l s

co n cl uded t h at t h e t r i a l co urt di d n o t ab us e i t s di s cret i o n i

n o v err ul i n g A ppel l an t ’ s Co n f ro n t at i o n

Cl aus e-b as ed o b

j ect i o n

. Id.

I

— The Cour t of Appeal s ’s Decis ion Conf l icts wit h P

aredes

A ppel l an t ’ s pet i t i o n argues

, i

n h i s f i rst an d s eco n d gro un ds f o r rev i ew, t hat t h e co urt o f

appea l s m i s appl i ed P ar edes i

n uph o l di n g t h e t ri al co urt ’ s adm

i s s i o n o f b o t h Dei s s ’ s t es t i m o n y o n t h e

wei gh t an d t h e l ab repo rt

. I b el i ev e A ppel l an t ’ s argum en

t h as m eri t b eca us e Dei s s ’ s t es t i

m o n y i t s el f

s h o ws i t do es n o t m eet o ur rul e i n P ar edes

.

In P ar edes

, an an al

y s t t es t i f i ed t h at b l o o d f

o un d o n t h e def

en dan t ’ s T -sh i rt was a DNA m at ch

t o o n e o f t h e v i ct i

m s

. P ar edes

, 462 S. W

. 2d at 512. T h e t es t i f y i n g an al y s t ’ s o pi n i o n was b as ed o n h er

an al y s i s o f dat a co m

pl i ed i n a b at ch pro ces s i

n v o l v i n g t h ree o t h er t ech

n i ci a ns w ho perf

o rm ed t h e

di f f eren t s t eps i n t h e pro ces s o f gen erat i

n g raw DNA dat a. Id. at 512–13. W e uph el d t h e adm i s s i o n

o f t h i s t es t i

m o n y agai n s t t h e def

en dan t ’ s Co n f ro n t at i o n Cl aus e-b as ed ch al l en ge. Id. at 519.

In ho l d i ng t h at t h e t es t i

m o n y was adm

i s s i b l e, we ex

pl ai n ed t h at t h e ex

pert “ perf o rm ed t h e

Br. f o r A ppel l an t at 22 (i n t ern al ci t at i o n s o m

i t t ed). 54

cruci al an al

y s i s det erm

i n i n g t h e DNA m at ch an d t es t i f i ed t o h er o wn co n cl

us i o n s

. ” Id. at 518. Sh e

wa s no t “m e r e l

y a s uperv i s o r wh o ‘ ch ecke d t h e b o x es ’ o n t h e l ab repo rt

. ” Id. In s t ead, s h e “ rel i ed

upo n raw, co m

put er- gen erat ed dat a i

n reach i n g h er co n cl

us i o n rat h er t h an an o t h er l a b o rat o ry

an al y s t ’ s repo rt

. ” Id.

In t h i s cas e, t h e co urt o f appea l s co n cl uded t h at Dei s s ’ s pro ces s was l i ke t h at us ed i

n P ar edes

,

b eca us e:

It was gen erat ed af

t er o t h er a

n al y s t s perf o rm ed t h e l egwo rk o f rem o v i n g a quan t um

o f s ub s t an ce f

r o m t h e b aggi es an d pl aci n g i t i n t h e m ach i

n es t h at co n duct ed t h e

an al y s i s

. T h e pro ces s ut i l i zed b y t h e m ach i n es gen erat es wav ef

o rm s

, wh i ch w a

v ef o rm s

t h e m ach i n e m em o ri al i zes an d co m

pares t o a l i

b rar y o f kn o wn wav ef

o rm s

. Di f f eren t

drugs h av e di f

f eren t wav ef o rm s an d co m

pari n g t h e gen erat ed wav ef

o rm s t o t h e l i

b rar y

o f kn o wn o n es i den

t i f i es t h e part i cul ar co n

t ro l l ed s ub s t an ce i

n v o l v ed. Ra t h er t h an

s i m pl y rel y o n t h e m ach i

n e gen erat ed m at ch

, Dei s s un dert o o k h er o wn co m pari s o n

o f t h e wav ef

o rm s gen erat ed b y t h e m ach i n e t o t h e l i

brar y o f kn o wn wav ef

o rm s

. T h ro ugh i t s h e co n f i rm s t h e accuracy o f t h e m ach i n e’ s as s es s m en

t

, ch ecks t h e s t eps

un dert aken t o o b t ai

n t h e wav ef

o rm s

, an d ex ecut es t h e ul t i m at e r epo rt

.

Hubbar d

, 2021 W L 521212, at *2. But t h i s an al y s i s

, ex am

i n i n g t h e wav ef

o rm s an d co m

pari n g t h o s e

t o kn o wn s ub s t an ce pat t ern s

, rel at es n o t t o t h e wei gh t o f t h e s ub s t an ce, b ut t o t h e i den t i t y o f t h e

s ub s t an ce.

F o r we i gh

t

, Dei s s t es t i f

i ed t h at s h e di d n o t wat ch t h e o t h er a n al y s t wei gh t h e s ub s t an ce, n o r

di d s h e wei gh i

t h erse l f

. F urt h erm o re, t h e m ach i

n es t h at pro duced t h e raw dat a o n t h e i den t i t y o f t h e 6

s ub s t an ce are n o t t h e s am e as t h e m ach i

n es t h at m eas ure t h e wei gh t

, b eca us e wei gh t was m eas ured

us i n g b al an ce sc al es

. On e o f t h e o t h er an al y s t s m eas ured t h e wei gh

t

, wro t e t h e wei gh

t o n t o a sl i p, 7

an d Dei s s ’ s o wn i

n v o l v em en t wi t h t h e wei gh

t co n s i s t ed o f m e r e l y c o m pari n g t h e wei gh

t f ro m t h e

Re p. R. v o l

. 4, 125, 134–35. 6

Id. at 102–03. 75

repo rt t h e wei gh

t wri t t en do wn o n t h e an al y s t ’ s s l i p. In s o f ar as t h e wei gh

t i s co n cern ed, Dei s s di d 8

n o t “ [r el y ] upo n raw, co m

put er- gen erat ed dat a i n reach i n g h er co n cl

us i o n rat h er t h an an o t h er

l ab o rat o ry an al

y s t ’ s repo rt

. ” P ar edes

, 462 S. W

. 3d at 518. T h e wei gh t ev i d e nc e was b ro ugh

t i n

t h ro ugh a surr o gat e.

Un der P ar edes

, Dei s s ’ s t es t i m o n y ab o ut h o w m

uch t h e s ub s t anc e wei gh ed v i o l at ed

A ppel l an t ’ s ri gh t s un der t h e Co n f

ro n t at i o n Cl aus e. T h e co urt o f appea l s ’ s deci s i o n co n f l i ct s wi t h t h e

rul e an d t h e reas o n i

n g o f P ar edes

, an d t h i s a r eas o n t o gran t A ppel l an t ’ s pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o n ary

rev i ew. See T ex

. R. A

pp. P. 66. 3(c)

.

I I

— Er r or Was P r es er

ved

Perh aps t h e Co urt ’ s deci s i o n t o ref us e r e vi ew i s b as ed o n a b el i ef t h at t h e i s s ue was n o t

prese rv ed f

o r appe l l a t e r e vi e w i

n t h e f i rst pl ace

. But def

en s e co un s el ’ s o b

j ect i o n t o t h e t ri al co urt

cl earl y t o l d t h e t ri al co urt t h at h e b el i ev ed Dei s s ’ s w e i g ht t es t i mo n y v i o l at ed A

ppel l an t ’ s

Co n f ro n t at i o n Cl aus e r i gh

t s :

Sh e i s n o t t h e wi

t n es s t h at

– n o t t h e an al

y s t t h at co n duct ed t h e t es t

. Sh e di dn ’ t

– h as

n o reco l l ect i o n o f o b s erv i n g t h e t es t

. Sh e h as n o r e c o l l e c t i o n o f o b s erv i n g t h e

wei gh i n g o f t h e m at eri al s

, b ut adm i t t edl y s h e was n ’ t t h e per s o n t h at wei gh ed t h em

. A n d es s en t i al l y

, wh at s h e di d i s rev i ew t h e i n f o rm at i o n dev el o ped t h

ro ugh t es t i

n g b y

o t h er an al y s t s an d s i gn ed h er n am

e t o t h e r epo rt

.

A n d s o

, I do n ’ t

– I do n ’ t

– s h e’ s a f i n e wo m an an d a gr eat wi

t n es s

, an d I appreci at e

h er b ei n g h ere, b ut s h e i s a s urr o gat e wi t n es s i n t h i s cas e f

o r t h e act ual an al

y s t s wh o

perf o rm ed t h e t es t s

. A

n d s o

, m y o b j ect i o n wo ul d b e t h at s ub s t i t ut i n g he r a s t h e

wi t n es s t o s po n s o r t h es e – t h es e t es t s den i es t h e D e f e ndan t ’ s ri gh t t o co n f ro n t

wi t n es s es un der t h e g u a r an t eed

– un der t h e Si x

t h A m en dm en t o f t h e U.S

. Co n s t i t ut i o n i n t h at h e h as t h e r i gh

t t o cro s s -ex am

i n e t h e act ual an al

y s t s

. 9

Id. at 134–35. 8

Re p R. v o l

. 4, 144–45. 96

T h e j udge o v err ul ed t h e o b j ect i o n

. A ppel l an t t o l d t h e t ri al j udge wh at h e wan t ed an d wh

y at a t i m e

t ha t t h e t ri al j udge was i n a po s i t i o n t o do s o m et h i

n g ab o ut i

t

, an d t h e t ri al j udg e d i d

s o m et h i n g—o v errul ed t h e o b

j ect i o n

. T h i s m eet s al l o f t h e requi rem en t s f o r prese rv at i o n o f err o r. See

P ena v. State

, 285 S. W

. 3d 459, 464 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2009); T ex

. R. A

pp. P. 33. 1(a)

. In s o f

ar as t h e

wei gh t t es t i m o n y i s co n cern ed, A

ppel l an t prese rv ed t h e Co n f

ro n t at i o n Cl aus e i s s ue.

T h i s Co urt s h o ul d gran

t rev i ew. Be caus e i

t do es n o t

, I respe ct f

ul l y di s s en t

.

F i l ed: Jun e 30, 2021

Pub l i s h