The Third District Court of Appeal held that a routine toxicology report prepared by a non-testifying analyst as part of a medical examiner’s statutory autopsy duty is not “testimonial,” so a testifying substitute expert may describe its contents without violating the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
Silverio Fonte was convicted of second-degree murder after admitting he stabbed the victim. At trial, over his objection, Miami-Dade’s chief medical examiner testified about a routine toxicology report prepared by a non-testifying analyst during the autopsy. Fonte argued on appeal that this violated his right to confront the analyst under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Smith v. Arizona.
The panel disagreed. The report was generated under the medical examiner’s routine statutory duty to determine cause of death, not to build a criminal case. “The primary purpose of an autopsy is to shed light on the cause of the victim’s death, an issue not present in this case because Fonte admitted to stabbing the victim,” the court wrote. Because the report lacked the primary purpose of advancing prosecution, it was not testimonial, and the Confrontation Clause did not bar the medical examiner’s testimony about it.
Citation: Fonte v. State, No. 3D25-0850 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 23, 2026).