State v. Caulfield

How later courts described this case

• deciding that laboratory report was testimonial because analyst attested to findings, report was equivalent of testimony, and report was prepared at police request for purpose of prosecution
• stating that the supreme court has never held that the admission of “direct and persuasive evidence on an element of the crime” was harmless solely because “other less direct and less persuasive or largely circumstantial evidence is strong”
• holding that a similar Minnesota statute vio *669 lates the Confrontation Clause because it does not give the defendant adequate notice that failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement waives the right to confrontation
• holding that a similar Minnesota statute violates the Confrontation Clause because it does not give the defendant adequate notice that failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement waives the right to confrontation

Written by the judges who cited it.