Smith v. Arizona

Last updated

Smith v. Arizona
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 10, 2024
Decided June 21, 2024
Full case nameJason Smith v. State of Arizona
Docket no. 22-899
Citations602 U.S. 779 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Priorjudgement for the defendant, State v. Smith; Arizona Court of Appeals, 1 CA-CR-21-051; Certiorari granted on September 29, 2023
SubsequentVacated and remanded
Questions presented
Does the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permit the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst?
Holding
When an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
MajorityThomas, joined by Gorsuch (Parts I, II IV)
ConcurrenceGorsuch, joined by Thomas (In part)
ConcurrenceAlito, joined by Roberts
Laws applied
Const. Amend. VI

Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth. [1] [2]

Contents

The case revolves around Jason Smith, who was charged with five-related drug offenses including, possession of methamphetamine and marijuana with intent to sell, Smith pleaded not guilty to all charges. At the trial, a forensic scientist of Department of Public Safety (DPA) named Elizabeth Rast, did a laboratory analysis at the substances but did not testify at the trial. Another DPA scientist named Greggory Longoni, testified at the trial while referencing Rast's notes. Smith was convicted and sentenced to four years of imprisonment. Smith appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that Longoni's testimony violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him under the Confrontation Clause but the court affirmed his conviction.

In a unanimous decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion.

Background

In December 2019, around 6:30 A.M., police officers with the Yuma County Narcotics Task Force arrived at Smith's father's house in Yuma County, Arizona to conduct a search warrant. A double-wide trailer, two travel trailers and a shed was found on the property, when the authorities approached a shed, they smelled a "overwhelming odor of fresh marijuana and burnt marijuana", After the officers ordered Smith to turn around and put his hands on the back, an officer had to remove him forcibly from the shed. When the officers took him to the ground to detain him, he refused to put his hand to his back and yelling that the officers were "illegally trespassing" and "harassing" him. When the officers placed him into the patrol vehicle, the officers also detained eleven individuals from the property, including two individuals who had been in the shed and Smith's father who's ill and needs to be under medical supervision. Once inside the shed, the officers described the room turned into a "makeshift room", containing a bed, a couch, a workbench, a cabinet, a small refrigerator and scattered clothes. During their search, they found six pounds of marijuana on the ceiling, ten grams of marijuana in a dish, they also discovered marijuana in various jars, a meth pipe, a marijuana flower, cannabis wax and methamphetamine. The Superior Court of Yuma County charged him of five counts of felonies, including the possessing of dangerous drugs with intended to sale, and was sentenced in four years of imprisonment. [3]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial. Specifically, the Court held that under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot use a person's statements made in response to an interrogation while in police custody as evidence at the person's criminal trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with a lawyer before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights but also voluntarily waived them before answering questions.

United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 9 and 10, 1922, and decided a month later on April 17. The case involved a Fifth Amendment rights issue centering on whether or not hard labor was an infamous punishment or whether imprisonment in a penitentiary was a necessity for punishment to be considered infamous.

Cory Jermaine Maye is a former American prisoner. He was originally convicted of murder in the 2001 death of Prentiss, Mississippi, police officer Ron W. Jones, during a drug raid on the other half of Maye's duplex.

William Alan Fletcher is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Fletcher was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1998. Fletcher is a Professor (Emeritus) at the UC Berkeley School of Law, where he still teaches federal courts.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

<i>Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal</i> 1982 murder trial in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal was a 1982 murder trial in which Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried for the first-degree murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner. A jury convicted Abu-Jamal on all counts and sentenced him to death.

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, per Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the state may not force a defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination solely for the purposes of sentencing. Any such examination violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and is therefore inadmissible at sentencing.

Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the traditional, common-law-derived "knock and announce" rule for executing search warrants must be incorporated into the "reasonableness" analysis of whether the actual execution of the warrant is/was justified under the 4th Amendment. The high court thus ruled that the old "knock and announce" rule while not a hard requirement, was also not a dead letter.

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that a person in police custody following a misdemeanor traffic offense was entitled to the protections of the Fifth Amendment pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Previously, some courts had been applying Miranda only to serious offenses.

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a pat down search of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided the police reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous.

Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a criminal suspect's assertion of his right to remain silent after a Miranda warning does not preclude the police from re-Mirandizing him and questioning him about a different crime.

Florida v. Thomas, 532 U.S. 774 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case brought to the court concerned the extent of the Court's earlier decision in New York v. Belton, concerning whether a person was in custody, a determination central to allowing evidence seized in an automobile search to be presented in trial. However, the Court unanimously dismissed the case because the decision of the Florida state courts was not "final".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Travis Alexander</span> 2008 murder of an American man in Mesa, Arizona

Travis Victor Alexander was an American salesman who was murdered by his ex-girlfriend, Jodi Ann Arias, in his house in Mesa, Arizona while in the shower. Arias was convicted of first-degree murder on May 8, 2013, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole on April 13, 2015.

Kansas v. Cheever, 571 U.S. 87 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the prosecution from introducing psychiatric evidence to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defense.

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.

State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin was an American criminal case in the District Court of Minnesota in 2021. Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was tried and convicted for the murder of George Floyd, which occurred during an arrest on May 25, 2020, and led to global protests over racial injustice and police brutality. A 12-member jury found Chauvin guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. It was the first conviction of a white police officer in Minnesota for the murder of a black person.

Diaz v. United States,, is a United States Supreme Court case. The court interpreted a provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

Roszaidi bin Osman is a Singaporean drug trafficker who is presently serving a life sentence for trafficking in 32.54g of diamorphine in October 2015. Roszaidi and four others were all arrested and charged with capital drug trafficking, though eventually, in January 2019, only Roszaidi and one accomplice out of the remaining four were found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The remaining three, including Roszaidi's wife, were given jail terms ranging between 25 years and life.

Brown v. United States,, is a United States Supreme Court case about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals, holding that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.

References

  1. SMITH v. ARIZONA United States Supreme Court
  2. "Justices send expert witness question back to state court". SCOTUSblog. 21 June 2024. Retrieved 4 November 2024.
  3. STATE v. SMITH ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS