State of North Carolina v. Theric Arnold Holt (COA25-560) is a driving while impaired case in which the Confrontation Clauses of both the United States and North Carolina Constitutions were raised. Here the North Carolina Court of Appeals was tasked with determining whether Mr. Holt’s constitutional rights were violation and if so, was the violation prejudicial.
In July of 2019, a corporal employed by the police department of Wake Forest, North Carolina stopped Mr. Holt for running a red light. Upon approaching Mr. Holt’s vehicle, the corporal noticed that his eyes appeared glassy and his breath smelled of alcohol. The corporal also noticed a half empty bottle of bourbon on the passenger floorboard. Mr. Holt admitted to consuming one drink about ninety minutes prior to the traffic stop. Mr. Holt declined performing field sobriety tests and submitting to a preliminary breath test. The corporal then formed an opinion that Mr. Holt was appreciably impaired by alcohol and arrested him for driving while impaired.
Mr. Holt was transported to the Wake County Detention Center where he refused to provide a breath sample. The corporal then obtained a warrant to collect a blood sample from Mr. Holt. A nurse on site drew blood from Mr. Holt and gave the sample to the corporal. The corporal sealed the packaged sample and put it into an evidence kit. About an hour after the sample was drawn by the nurse, the corporal put the kit into an unrefrigerated locker. About four hours later, an evidence technician moved the evidence kit containing Mr. Holt’s blood to an evidence room refrigerator. About four days later, another evidence technician moved the kit to another unit in an evidence refrigerator.
Roughly six days after the initial traffic stop, Mr. Allcox, an analyst with the Wake City-County Bureau of Identification (CCBI) removed Mr. Holt’s blood sample from its evidence refrigerator for testing. Mr. Allcox’s testing concluded that Mr. Holt’s alcohol concentration was 0.15 grams per 100 milliliters of blood. An administrative and technical review of Mr. Allcox’s work was conducted by Dr. Waggoner who was also employed by CCBI. Dr. Waggoner approved Mr. Allcox’s work, performed his own calculations, and also determined that Mr. Holt’s alcohol concentration was 0.15 grams per 100 milliliters of blood.
Mr. Holt was tried and found guilty of driving while impaired in Wake County District Court. He gave notice of appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Holt was tried in Superior Court in March of 2023, but a mistrial was declared after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The case was tried again in Superior Court one year later. At trial, Dr. Waggoner provided expert testimony but Mr. Allcox, who had retired a few years prior, was not called as a witness. Dr. Waggoner testified that “he did not perform the analysis on this case” and that he was “not involved in the testing or the receipt of evidence.” Dr. Waggoner acknowledged that problems in Mr. Allcox’s testing could have been caused by clotting, fermentation, the packaging of the sample, vial leaks, the blood volume, homogeneity, and pipetted bubbles. He also acknowledged that he did not have an opportunity to check for these issues. Furthermore, Dr. Waggoner testified that clotting and fermentation of the sample can potentially produce artificially high alcohol levels. The trial court also admitted into evidence State’s Exhibit 7 which included the “CCBI Laboratory Technical and Administrative Review/Coversheet”. This document included results of Mr. Holt’s sample test and it contained Mr. Allcox’s underlying report which had been reviewed by Dr. Waggoner. Mr. Holt objected to the admission of this document on the grounds of hearsay, authentication, and as a violation of the Confrontation Clause. Mr. Holt’s objection was overruled and the document was admitted with a limiting instruction. Exhibit 7 was not admitted for substantive purposes nor as proof of alcohol concentration. Exhibit 7 was to be considered by the jury only for the limited purpose of disclosing the information that Dr. Waggoner considering in making his opinion. Mr. Holt was convicted of driving while impaired and gave notice of appeal.
On appeal, Mr. Holt argued that Dr. Waggoner’s testimony and the admission of State’s Exhibit 7 violated his federal and state constitutional rights under the Confrontation Clause. The federal Confrontation Clause can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution whereas the state Confrontation Clause is contained in Article I, Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Confrontation Clause rights guaranteed under the United States and North Carolina Constitutions are generally consistent with each other. Both guarantee a defendant’s right to confront the witness against him in a criminal proceeding. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviews alleged constitutional violations de novo. State v. Clark, 296 N.C. App, 718, 719, 909 S.E.2d 566, 568 (2024).
Because laboratory tests and forensic reports can possibly be manipulated or may be prone to human error, a defendant has a right to “confront” them. That is, a defendant has a right to cross-examine the analyst who conducted the tests, interpreted the results, and prepared the reports. A violation of the Confrontation Clause can occur when one analyst performs the tests and prepares the results while another analyst, testifying as an expert, reads the work produced by the first analyst.
The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Confrontation Clause only applies to testimonial hearsay. Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 783 (2024). A statement is hearsay when it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Whether a statement is testimonial depends on its primary purpose. In North Carolina, laboratory reports that are created only to assist law enforcement with investigations are testimonial. Clark, 296 N.C. App at 723, 909 S.E.2d at 570 (citation omitted).
Here, Dr. Waggoner and Mr. Allcox were co-workers, had similar qualifications, and reviewed each other’s work. But Dr. Waggoner testified that he had not seen Mr. Holt’s blood sample and he did not personally know the condition of the blood. Dr. Waggoner’s pertinent statements in this matter went beyond the general laboratory practices and procedures in place at CCBI of which he did have personal knowledge. However, Dr. Waggoner had no personal knowledge of Mr. Allcox’s handling of the blood and he did not personally participate in the actual blood testing. Dr. Waggoner could not testify as to any potential human errors made by Mr. Allcox during the blood testing. Mr. Holt could not cross-examine Dr. Waggoner about these nor could he cross-examine Dr. Waggoner on the condition of the blood sample for possible clotting, fermentation, pipetted bubbles, or homogeneity in the blood sample. Furthermore, Mr. Holt could not cross-examine Dr. Waggoner on the sufficiency of blood volume or the packaging of the blood. Dr. Waggoner’s testimony relied upon the truth of Mr. Allcox’s report. Mr. Allcox’s report served to prop up Dr. Waggoner’s testimony and the portions of that testimony that relied on the truthfulness of Mr. Allcox’s report were determined to be hearsay by the appellate Court.
Having determined that Dr. Waggoner’s testimony was hearsay, the Court then turned its attention on whether State’s Exhibit 7 and Dr. Waggoner’s testimony were testimonial. The Court recognized that CCBI is a public entity created by the North Carolina General Assembly. When the police department requested the services of CCBI with respect to conducting the testing on Mr. Holt’s blood sample, Mr. Holt had already been arrested and charged with the offense of driving while impaired. A search warrant had already been obtained for the blood to be drawn. The laboratory request form, Dr. Waggoner’s review report, and Mr. Allcox’s underlying report all contained a case number associated with Mr. Holt. State’s Exhibit 7 was created exclusively to assist the police in its investigation of the driving while impaired case against Mr. Holt. The primary purpose for Dr. Waggoner’s statements and State’s Exhibit 7 was to demonstrate Mr. Holt’s blood alcohol concentration. Thus, the Court finds that they were testimonial.
Having found that the relevant statements were both testimonial and hearsay, the appellate Court determined that Mr. Holt’s rights under the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and the state of North Caolina were violated. The only evidence supporting Mr. Holt’s specific blood alcohol concentration were Dr. Waggoner’s testimony and State’s Exhibit 7. The error created by the Confrontation Clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and consequently it was prejudicial to Mr. Holt. Based on these determinations, the appellate Court ruled that Mr. Holt was entitled to a new trial.
Recent Comments