Smith v. Arizona
| Smith v. Arizona | |
|---|---|
| Argued January 10, 2024 Decided June 21, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Jason Smith v. State of Arizona |
| Docket no. | 22-899 |
| Citations | 602 U.S. 779 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | judgement for the defendant, State v. Smith; Arizona Court of Appeals, 1 CA-CR-21-051; Certiorari granted on September 29, 2023 |
| Subsequent | Vacated 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 | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson; Thomas, Gorsuch (parts I, II, IV) |
| Concurrence | Thomas (in part) |
| Concurrence | Gorsuch (in part) |
| Concurrence | Alito (in judgement), 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.
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. Elizabeth Rast, a forensic scientist from the Department of Public Safety (DPS), performed the laboratory analysis of the substances, but did not testify at the trial. Another DPS 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. The court affirmed his conviction.
In a unanimous decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion.