Peters v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• report of blood sample test could not be admitted in trial in absence of the lab technician who prepared the report
• because lab testing and conclusions are testimonial in nature providing evidence on an element of a drug possession charge, the right to confrontation typically requires the testimony of the analyst, although an error in this regard may not rise to the level of palpable error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Davis v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2012-04-26· cited 3×
• Joseph S. Masters v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2025-10-23

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Crawford v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
• Ohio v. Roberts
  Supreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 5,425×
• Davis v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 2006-06-19· cited 4,179×
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
  Supreme Court· 2009-06-25· cited 2,882×
• Commonwealth v. English
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1999-06-17· cited 1,274×
• Martin v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2006-05-23· cited 437×
• Chestnut v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2008-04-24· cited 111×
• Davis v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1990-09-06· cited 57×
• Rankins v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2007-11-01· cited 17×
• Gilbert v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 1982-05-25· cited 10×
• Wickware v. Commonwealth
  Court of Appeals of Kentucky· 1969-02-14· cited 6×
• Clutter v. Commonwealth
  Kentucky Supreme Court· 2010-09-23· cited 3×