Opinion ID: 1152527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in admitting the alleged cocaine and certificate of analysis into evidence over the objection of barnette?

Text: Over objection of Barnette, the state introduced into evidence a certificate of analysis prepared January 27, 1982, concerning the alleged cocaine. The certificate was admitted pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-114 (Supp. 1985). It identified the state's exhibit, which was allegedly the cocaine purchased from Barnette as indeed being cocaine. The analyst who prepared the certificate did not testify and neither the state nor Barnette moved prior to trial for the court to require the analyst to testify. Barnette contends that it was error to allow the certificate of analysis into evidence because it violated his right to confront witnesses against him as guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution. In effect, the appellant is contending that Mississippi Code Annotated § 13-1-114 (Supp. 1985), is unconstitutional. That section provides as follows: 13-1-114. Admissibility of certificate of physician, chemist, or technician as proof of identity of controlled substance. (1) In the prosecution for a criminal offense where testimony of an analysis of a controlled substance, as defined in sections 41-29-113, 41-29-117, 41-29-119 and 41-29-121, by a physician, chemist or technician is called for, the certificate of such person shall be admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein and of the results of the analysis referred to therein provided that: (a) The analysis is performed in a court-approved laboratory; and (b) The certificate of analysis is duly attested to by the physician, chemist or technician performing said analysis. (2) On motion of any party in any misdemeanor or felony case, and within a reasonable time prior to trial, the court may require the official making the analysis to appear as a witness. We agree that it was error to admit the certificate of analysis into evidence over the objection of Barnette; however, we stop short of finding the statute unconstitutional.