WA Crash Prosecutors -

*OPINION RELEASED - State v. Hall-Haught*

Alright, folks - I've been lecturing nationally on the USSC's Smith decision for a long time and today we get our WA State analog:

If you haven't seen my briefing, State v. Hall-Haught is an Island Co. case which, in Div-I of the COA, supported the common notion that a reviewing or supervising scientist can testify to our tox results on impaired driving cases. This was supported by State v. Lui and over a decade of confrontation jurisprudence.

This case was elevated to our supreme court to review in light of Smith. Our supreme Court admitted that they would have to abrogate State v. Lui in order to support a Smith claim under these circumstances in WA.

And that’s what they did:

“To the extent that Lui allowed the supervisor’s expert opinion to rely on the nontestifying forensic analyst’s factual statements as the basis for their opinion, it is unconstitutional under Smith. To this extent, Smith has abrogated Lui.” 

This will change the way we marshal our trial cases in WA when it comes to tox testimony (leaving some room for some possible procedural avenues forward). What's noteworthy here is that our court actually addressed the "testimonial" question avoided by most other state courts which have dealt with their own Smith cases.

Download The Opinion Here

Reach out with questions.

- Cheers!

Brad & Michelle