Admission of drug test results; Chemical test analyses under MCL 257.625a; Gard v. Michigan Produce Haulers; People v. Lucas; Scientific reliability; MRE 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.; Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.; Harmless error; People v. King; M Crim JI 12.7; People v. Matuszak

The court held that while not all of the Gard factors were specifically satisfied here, the witness’s (T) testimony was adequate for admission of the drug test results. Also, the urine drug test was of relatively little importance, making any error in its admission harmless. Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (meth). He argued that the drug test results should have been excluded due to lack of scientific reliability. The court noted at the outset that T “was not presented as an expert witness, nor did her testimony resemble expert testimony.” Thus, the trial court was not required to ensure that her testimony was scientifically reliable. Gard outlined the foundational requirements necessary for admission of chemical test analyses under MCL 257.625a, and most of the Gard factors were clearly satisfied by T’s testimony. There was “no evidence that defendant’s urine was labelled, but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that doing so was unnecessary.” The evidence indicated that the urine was not obtained by “an authorized licensed physician, medical technologist, or registered nurse designated by a licensed physician,” but the court could not “conceive of no reason why doing so would have been necessary under the circumstances.” Thus, although not all of the Gard factors were specifically satisfied, T’s “testimony was adequate for admission of the results under the trial court’s ‘considerable discretion in deciding whether a proper foundation has been laid.’” Affirmed.