In Robbins v. State, the appeals court held that where a testifying toxicologist personally reviewed, agreed with, certified, and was authorized to perform the kind of test that yielded results at issue, his testimony about those results did not violate the defendant’s confrontation right. After a visibly impaired driver tested negative for alcohol in a breath test, his blood test results were processed by the Washington State Toxicology Laboratory which revealed several controlled substances in the driver’s system. At trial, the State presented the blood results through the testimony of a toxicologist at the lab who was assigned to the defendant’s case and who had certified the results but who did not perform all of the testing himself. On appeal, the driver argued that the toxicologist’s testimony about the test that he certified but did not perform was impermissible heresay testimony that violated the confrontation clause. Based on its reading of Vann v. State and Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the appeals court reasoned that while not officially the actual tester’s supervisor, the testifying toxicologist was responsible for reviewing and certifying the results and therefore was personally connected to the scientific test at issue. Affirming the lower court, the appeals court held that because the testifying toxicologist personally reviewed, agreed with, certified, and was authorized to perform the kind of test that yielded the disputed results, his testimony about those results did not violate the defendant’s confrontation right.
 449 P.3d 1111 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).