Are Lab Reports Admissible As Hearsay in Florida?

June 20, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

In Florida, lab reports and other forensic evidence are often admitted by the State at trial against a defendant. These documents may serve various functions, such as:

• Matching DNA of someone alleged to be at a crime scene to a particular individual
• Testing drugs allegedly seized by police to ensure these are controlled substances
• Providing details regarding blood, semen, or toxicology analyses relevant to a case

Sometimes, prosecutors may attempt to introduce lab reports as hearsay. But are lab reports actually admissible as hearsay, allowing the preparer of the reports not to testify as to their findings in court? The answer is no.

This article will discuss the admissibility of lab reports as hearsay and how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington and Florida’s courts address the use of such evidence in a court of law.

Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the Court permitted the introduction of hearsay in all U.S. courts under two conditions:

• The declarant (speaker or author of the statement) is unavailable to testify at trial despite reasonable efforts to procure their presence
• The statement is found by the court to have “adequate indicia of reliability” for use at trial, even in the absence of cross-examination by the defendant

In order for courts to find a hearsay statement had “adequate indicia of reliability,” it had to make a finding on the record that one of two conditions (or both) were satisfied:

• The statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception
• The statement had particularized guarantees of trustworthiness based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the statement (according to the court)

Under Ohio v. Roberts, lab reports and similar forensic evidence were typically admissible as hearsay – as they were usually found to have adequate indicia of reliability. This meant that it was not necessary for the creator of a lab report to testify regarding their findings – and face cross-examination at trial. 

But that all changed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) decision, which overruled Roberts. In Crawford, the court distinguished between two types of hearsay – testimonial and nontestimonial. According to Crawford: 

• Testimonial hearsay is an out of court statement that is spoken or written primarily for the purpose of furthering a government investigation/fact-finding for a future prosecution 
• Nontestimonial hearsay is an out of court statement that is spoken or written primarily for the purpose of responding to an ongoing emergency (initial 911 calls while an event is happening, statements to non-law enforcement sources disclosing physical or sexual abuse, etc.)

According to Crawford’s interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, testimonial hearsay is inadmissible in court unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant regarding their statement. Testimonial hearsay may include:

• Statements made during interviews with law enforcement
• Statement made by an alleged child abuse victim to a child protection team (CPT) forensic interviewer
• 911 calls after the ongoing emergency has ended
• Lab reports

The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that lab reports are considered testimonial hearsay in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). Melendez-Diaz was convicted after a lab report identifying the substance she was charged with possessing as cocaine was introduced at his trial. He had no chance to cross-examine the preparer of the report as to its contents.

The Court reversed his conviction, noting that the introduction of such reports without the chance for a defendant to cross-examine the analyst who prepared them constituted a violation of Melendez-Diaz’s confrontation right. Id. Two years later, the Court reached a similar ruling in Bullcoming v. New Mexico – further refining the cross-examination requirements before a lab report can be introduced at trial. Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). 

In Bullcoming, a blood toxicology report was admitted against a defendant – and a surrogate analyst (who did not perform or observe the testing that produced the report) testified as to its contents. Bullcoming appealed, arguing he had a right to cross-examine the actual analyst who prepared and certified the report. The Court agreed, holding that his confrontation rights were violated.

In line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Florida’s courts have consistently held that forensic lab reports are testimonial hearsay. In State v. Johnson, the Florida Supreme Court held that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) lab report establishing the illegal nature of the alleged controlled substances seized was testimonial hearsay – giving Johnson the right to cross-examine the preparing analyst. State v. Johnson, 982 So.2d 672 (Fla. 2008) 

Johnson further held that even if such a lab report is kept in the regular course of business, it cannot be admitted without the opportunity to cross-examine the preparing analyst under the business records exception (90.803(6)). This is because the report functioned as testimonial hearsay and was prepared for litigation. Id. 

Given these requirements, forensic lab reports are held inadmissible in Florida’s courts unless:

• The preparer of the report testifies at trial at the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine them
• The preparer of the report is unavailable at trial, but the defendant has had the prior opportunity to cross-examine them in accordance with Confrontation Clause

Note: Discovery depositions under FRCP Rule 3.220 do not satisfy the right to confrontation. State v. Contreras, 979 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2008)

Florida’s courts have also held that autopsy reports intended to be introduced at trial are generally considered testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause. Rosario v. State, 175 So.3d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Rosario recognized autopsy reports (if a criminal investigation is initiated surrounding the death of the deceased) are testimonial, because it is reasonably foreseeable that such reports may be used prosecutorially.

In sum, lab reports are inadmissible in Florida (and all U.S. states) under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause unless the defendant is able to cross-examine the preparer of the report at trial, or the preparer is unavailable at trial and the defendant has had the prior opportunity to cross-examine them.

Under Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming, lab reports are recognized as testimonial hearsay – out of court statements prepared for the primary purpose of facilitating a government investigation and/or a future prosecution. 

The admission of lab reports or other hearsay can change the outcome of a case, so it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible if someone is charged with an offense in Florida. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share