Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARLEY JAY HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-11-25
Citations: 232 Or. App. 270
Docket Number: CFH050163; A133896
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARLEY JAY HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Rosenblum, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 232
Pages: 270–271

Head Matter:
Submitted October 26,
reversed and remanded November 25, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARLEY JAY HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
CFH050163; A133896
221 P3d 830
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Appellate Division, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Laura S. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Rosenblum, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Deits, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). He asserts that the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress a laboratory report without the testimony of the criminalist who authored the report in violation of his state and federal confrontation rights, and (2) denying his motion to cross-examine a police officer about that officer's termination from another police department for falsifying police reports in violation of the Oregon Evidence Code and his state and federal confrontation rights.
With respect to defendant's first assignment of error, the state concedes that the laboratory report identifying the substance in defendant's possession was erroneously admitted over defendant's objection and that the case should be remanded. We agree that the trial court erred in admitting the laboratory report and that the error was not harmless. See Melindez-Diaz v. Massachussets,_US_, 129 S Ct 2527, 174 L Ed 2d 314 (2009) (holding that affidavits reporting the results of forensic analysis are testimonial and thus subject to Sixth Amendment requirements). Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Given that disposition, and in view of the fact that the record may develop differently on remand, we do not address defendant's second assignment of error.
Reversed and remanded.