Rutterschmidt

This is the third of three cases before us involving the federal Constitution’s right to confront adverse witnesses. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.) The two companion cases are People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569 , and People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608 .

Here, defendant Helen Golay and codefendant Olga Rutterschmidt were in their mid-70’s when they were charged with murdering two men—one in 1999, the other in 2005—by running over each of them with a car. Issued in each victim’s name were life insurance policies listing defendant Golay and co-defendant Rutterschmidt as beneficiaries. They collected $589,124.93 on one victim’s life insurance policies; with respect to the other victim, Golay received $1,540,767.05;' and Rutterschmidt $674,571.89.

As relevant here, the prosecution’s theory was that one of the two victims (McDavid) had been drugged before he was tilled. To prove this point, the prosecution presented the testimony of a laboratory director who, relying on reports not prepared by him, testified that testing of the victim’s blood samples by analysts at his laboratory had determined the presence of drugs that could have caused drowsiness. According to defendant…