Appellant Silvester Carolina, Jr. was convicted by a jury of trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He appeals, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the cocaine into evidence because the lab technician who tested the substance did not testify at trial and the testimony by a state crime lab supervisor concerning the results of the testing was thus inadmissible hearsay that violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.1 Finding this argument to be without merit, we affirm. At trial, defendant stipulated to the qualifications of Lori Reeves, a forensic chemist with the state crime lab, who was then qualified as an expert in the field of forensic chemistry. Reeves testified concerning the testing of the substance subsequently introduced at trial as State’s Exhibit 6. She testified that a sample of the substance was first weighed to get a total net weight and then three tests were performed, two of them, the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and thin layer chromatography, for qualitative analysis to determine the nature of the substance and the other, the high performance liquid chromatography test, for quantitative analysis to determine the purity of the substance. The qualitative tests were positive for cocaine and the quantitative test indicated it was 60.3 percent pure. Reeves further testified that although she could not remember if she performed the tests or if they were performed by Patti Moore, a crime lab technician, she reviewed the tests and the data to make the determination concerning whether the substance was positive for cocaine and to determine the purity. She also testified concerning checks and balances designed to ensure that the testing is done according to procedure, including the fact that she runs controls after the tests are conducted before any of the information can be released to the file. Additionally, Reeves testified that she reviews all data and that the lab technician is only trained to do the “process” and cannot make the determination concerning whether a tested substance is positive for cocaine.
On appeal, Carolina argues that this testimony was inadmissible hearsay and violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights because he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the lab technician who may have actually performed the tests. However, this Court recently rejected this argument in Dunn v. State , 292 Ga. App. 667 665 SE2d 377 2008, and that “thoughtful and well reasoned opinion of the majority,” id. at 673 Phipps, J., concurring fully and specially, has now been followed in several cases involving the same or similar circumstances. Reddick v. State , 298 Ga. App. 155, 157-158 2 679 SE2d 380 2009; Carter v. State , 297 Ga. App. 608, 610-611 2 677 SE2d 792 2009; see also Rector v. State 285 Ga. 714, 715 4 681 SE2d 157 2009 trial court did not err by allowing the State’s toxicologist to testify about a toxicology report prepared by another doctor where toxicologist reviewed the report and reached the same conclusion as the doctor who prepared the report.
