Opinion ID: 1657739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Crime Laboratory Report

Text: For his second point, Appellant argues that it was error for the trial court to allow the prosecution to introduce into evidence a copy of the forensic chemist's report containing the analysis of the drugs recovered in this case. Appellant's argument is twofold: (1) He was denied his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the chemist who conducted the analysis, and (2) the report was not properly attested as provided in Ark.Code Ann. § 12-12-313 (Repl.1995). We find no merit to either of Appellant's arguments. Section 12-12-313 provides: (a) The records and reports of autopsies, evidence analysis, drug analysis, and any investigations made by the State Crime Laboratory under the authority of this subchapter shall be received as competent evidence as to the matters contained therein in the courts of this state subject to the applicable rules of criminal procedure when duly attested to by the executive director or his assistants, associates, or deputies. (b) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to abrogate a defendant's right of cross-examination if notice of intention to cross-examination is given prior to the date of hearing or trial pursuant to the applicable rules of criminal procedure. (c) The testimony of the appropriate analyst may be compelled by the issuance of a proper subpoena, in which case the records and reports shall be admissible through the analyst who shall be subject to cross-examination by the defendant or his counsel. (d)(1) All records and reports of evidence analysis of the State Crime Laboratory shall be received as competent evidence as to the facts in any court or other proceeding when duly attested to by the employee who performed the analysis. (2) The defendant shall give at least ten (10) days notice prior to the proceedings that he requests the presence of the employee of the State Crime Laboratory who performed the analysis for the purposes of cross-examination. (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to abrogate the defendant's right to cross-examination. The purpose of this statute is to remove these reports from exclusion under the hearsay rule and make them admissible when certain requirements designed to establish their trustworthiness have been satisfied. Nard v. State, 304 Ark. 159, 801 S.W.2d 634 (1990). Appellant's abstract reflects that the charges against Appellant were filed on September 29, 1995, and that the trial was conducted on November 7-8, 1995. Appellant asserts that his trial counsel was not aware of the charges filed against him until the day before the trial. Appellant further asserts that his trial counsel was not notified of the prosecution's intention to introduce the analysis report until the prosecution moved for its introduction at trial. It is Appellant's contention on appeal that he did not waive his right to cross-examine the chemist, and that he should not have been held to the ten-day-notice requirement in section 12-12-313 because he was not aware that the prosecution would not call the chemist as a witness until that point during the trial when the prosecution offered the analysis report as evidence. Appellant does not assert that he had indicated this desire to cross-examine the chemist at anytime prior to his trial. Appellant's argument that he did not have time to comply with the ten-day-notice requirement is unpersuasive as we believe he knew or should have known that the prosecution would attempt to use the evidence against him either through the chemist's testimony or through the report itself. We further find the argument unpersuasive as it is clear from the abstract of the record that Appellant was fully aware that his counsel had not had adequate opportunity to compile discovery or to attempt to negotiate a plea bargain. In fact, Appellant's trial counsel made the court aware of his client's desire to get on with the trial as soon as possible during a pretrial hearing. Appellant's trial counsel stated: We have no discovery in this case. That is not the fault of the State because the case was just filed. My client insists on going to trial, and believes that the faster he goes to trial, the faster he can be released. He has maintained his innocence and it is his belief and desire to go ahead and have a trial so that he may be acquitted and discharged. Even with the risk of his attorney being ignorant of what the State has in this matter and what their level of proof and preparedness is. It is clear from counsel's remarks that it was Appellant's conscious desire to proceed to trial even though his attorney may not have been fully prepared to defend him. Appellant cannot now assert that he was not prepared to defend against the admission of the chemist's report without being allowed to cross-examine the chemist when it was Appellant's own decision to rush through with the trial. This court has previously concluded that it is the state's burden to produce the chemist or to obtain a continuance when the state has caused the defendant to be unable to comply with the statute's ten-day-notice prerequisite. Lockhart v. State, 314 Ark. 394, 862 S.W.2d 265 (1993). Nonetheless, the defendant is at least required to inform the state that he desires to have the chemist present at trial so the state would realize that it must fulfill its burden to produce the witness. Id. Moreover, an appellant must also demonstrate that he has been prejudiced, beyond the bare assertion of the constitutional right to confront witnesses, by the denial of cross-examination or that such a request would have availed him anything. Id. Appellant relies heavily on the decision in Hendrix v. State, 40 Ark.App. 52, 842 S.W.2d 443 (1992), in which the court of appeals concluded that [w]hile the procedural rule requiring pretrial notice of demand for the right of cross-examination of a laboratory employee is generally a reasonable one, there can be no reasonable basis for enforcing such a rule where it is not possible for the accused to comply. Id. at 57, 842 S.W.2d at 446. Appellant's reliance on that holding is misplaced, however, as the facts of that case were such that the state attempted to admit a drug-analysis report involving a previous arrest of the defendant without any prior notice to the defendant, for the purposes of impeaching his testimony. Such a situation is readily distinguishable from the facts present in this case. Appellant was charged with two controlled substance offenses and, thus, he knew or should have known that the prosecution would necessarily introduce evidence establishing that the substances were illegal drugs. Had Appellant truly desired to cross-examine the chemist, he should have informed the prosecution of this desire as soon as possible prior to commencement of the trial. As to the specific allegation that his trial attorney was not aware of the prosecution's intention to introduce the report, Appellant has no one but himself to blame for counsel's lack of preparation, as he chose to roll the dice and proceed with the trial knowing that his attorney had not had the opportunity to conduct proper discovery. Furthermore, Appellant has not demonstrated in any way that he has been prejudiced by being denied cross-examination of the chemist. See Lockhart, 314 Ark. 394, 862 S.W.2d 265. For the second prong of this contention, Appellant argues that the chemist's report was not properly attested as provided in section 12-12-313. The attestation contained on the face of the chemist's analysis report reads: I do hereby attest and confirm as specified by A.C.A. XX-XX-XXX, that the information listed below is a true and accurate report of the results of analysis performed by me of evidence received in a sealed condition at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. The report displays a laboratory case number 95-13118 and lists the Appellant's name along with James Martin and Ricky Glenn Bennett as suspects. The report is signed by the forensic chemist, Kathy S. Shanks, and is notarized. We rely on this court's previous holding in Willis v. State, 309 Ark. 328, 829 S.W.2d 417 (1992), in which the appellant likewise challenged the sufficiency of the attestation of a drug analysis report. The report in that case stated: I, Keith Kerr, Chemist, do hereby certify and attest that I personally performed the laboratory tests and prepared the laboratory analysis report in Laboratory Case No. 90-02473. Id. at 330, 829 S.W.2d at 419. This court concluded that the attestation contained in the report was sufficient under section 12-12-313, in that it provided certain indicia of truthfulness. This court concluded further that there is no notarization requirement in section 12-12-313. We thus hold that the attestation of the analysis report in this case was sufficient and proper under the requirements of section 12-12-313.