Opinion ID: 861229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: testimony regarding lab results

Text: Scott first argues that the lower court erred by allowing Tony Axthelm to testify about G.W.’s lab results. Axthelm was the a nurse on duty in the emergency room the night G.W. went in after she was raped. Scott maintains that Dr. Homberg, the physician who treated G.W. that night, was the proper party to testify regarding the treatment and lab results of G.W. Scott claims that Axthelm should not have been able to testify as to the results because she was not present when the lab did its analysis. Scott argues that his right to confrontation was violated because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Homberg and the lab technician who performed the test and prepared the lab report and analysis. Scott also summarily argues that such testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The record reveals that Axthelm was asked about the lab results to which she was able to state that sperm was found in the vaginal wash taken from G.W. However, when the State asked Axthelm what one-plus sperm meant from the lab report, she merely responded, All I know is that means sperm was found. No further testimony was offered from Axthelm regarding the results gathereed from the tests. Scott cites to Barnette v. State as one of the cases in support of this argument. Barnette v. State, 481 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1985). In Barnette, the supreme court held that it was reversible error to introduce a certificate of analysis of a controlled substance without requiring the analyst to testify. Id. at 791. The Barnette case is readily distinguishable from the case at bar. In Barnette, the defendant was charged with selling a controlled substance. An essential element of the crime of selling a controlled substance is that the substance is indeed a controlled one within the purview of the statute. This must be determined by chemical analysis. The court held that to allow the essential element to be proven solely by a certificate of the analyst impermissibly lessens the constitutionally required burden on the state. Id. In the present case, Axthelm merely testified that the lab results indicated that sperm was found. She did not go any further into the analysis of the report. We do not find that such testimony lessened the burden for the prosecution in any manner. Futhermore, we do not find that Scott’s right to confront adverse witnesses was violated. In any case, if any error be found here, it was no more than harmless error. A violation of the Confrontation Clause is subject to harmless error analysis. Earl v. State, 672 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Miss. 1996). The correct inquiry on appellate review has been stated as follows: Assuming that the damaging potential of the cross-examination were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts. These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. Id. at 1243-44 (emphasis added). In the present case, the parties stipulated to the introduction of the Mississippi Crime Lab reports which encompassed the content of Axthelm’s testimony, plus further information analyzing the findings from the test. Scott specifically agreed to the stipulation of the reports. Therefore Axthelm’s testimony regarding the results of the lab test were cumulative at best.