Following a jury trial, Jeff Disharoon and his girlfriend, Brandi McIntyre, were convicted on several charges involving sex with a minor.1 The victim’s DNA was found on items at the couple’s home. At trial, Connie Pickens was qualified as an expert to testify about the results of the DNA testing. Counsel for both Disharoon and McIntyre cross-examined Pickens concerning the procedures and testing used. Although Pickens initially testified that she personally performed the DNA analysis process, Pickens admitted that she was not present when another technician placed the ninety-six test samples and controls into the scientific instrument used to complete a step of the testing procedure. Pickens testified that she read the results from the instrument and concluded that the control samples worked as expected. Disharoon and McIntyre objected to the testimony as inadmissible hearsay and a violation of the Confrontation Clause under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305 128 SC 2527 2009 the State’s use of a forensic laboratory report violated the Confrontation Clause where there was no live witness available for cross-examination who was competent to testify as to the truth of the statements made in the report. The Court of Appeals found no error, stating that it had rejected the same argument previously in Carolina v. State , 302 Ga. App. 40, 41-42 690 SE2d 435 2010 testimony of lab supervisor who did not perform the tests on the substance at issue was not inadmissable hearsay that violated the Confrontation Clause. See also Herrera v. State , 288 Ga. 231, 234 4 702 SE2d 854 2010; Dunn v. State , 292 Ga. App. 667, 671 665 SE2d 377 2008 admission of laboratory supervisor’s testimony and conclusions, which were based on test conducted by a technician who did not testify at trial, did not violate Confrontation Clause.
Prior to the Court of Appeals’ rendering its decision, the United States Supreme Court issued Bullcoming v. New Mexico , __U.S.__ 131 SC 2705, 180 LE2d 610 2011 holding that “surrogate testimony” of the “scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification” violates the Confrontation Clause. The Court of Appeals did not address Bullcoming in its decision. We therefore granted certiorari to determine whether, in light of Bullcoming , the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred where an expert was allowed to testify about the results of DNA testing when that testifying expert was not the one who performed every step of the test. As explained more fully below, because the record reveals that no violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred under the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
