Unattested State Crime Lab Autopsy Reports: Error, But Harmless Where Cause of Death Is Undisputed and Liability Is as an Accomplice

Introduction

In Nathaniel Fort v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 148, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed a capital murder conviction and life sentence arising from the shooting death of Aaron Bruce. The opinion addresses three discrete appellate claims: (1) the erroneous admission of an autopsy report from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory without the statutory attestation; (2) the denial of the defendant’s statutory right to allocution; and (3) alleged noncompliance with the statutory “short report of circumstances” that must accompany commitment papers to the Division of Correction.

The Court’s most consequential holding clarifies the evidentiary and constitutional treatment of crime lab autopsy reports: admitting a State Crime Lab autopsy report without the attestation required by Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313 is error. Nevertheless, that error—and even any Confrontation Clause violation—can be harmless when the cause of death is undisputed and the defendant’s culpability rests on accomplice liability that does not turn on which specific bullet caused death. A concurrence underscores that harmless-error review for statutory evidentiary error and Confrontation Clause error are distinct inquiries and should be conducted separately.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court held that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting the victim’s autopsy report without proper attestation under the State Crime Lab statute. The State conceded the statutory error, though it maintained the error was harmless. The Supreme Court agreed: the cause of death (multiple gunshot wounds) was not disputed and was cumulative of other testimony; moreover, because Fort’s conviction proceeded on an accomplice-liability theory, it was immaterial which shooter fired the fatal round.

The Court further held that Fort failed to preserve his allocution claim by not objecting contemporaneously when the court omitted allocution. Similarly, Fort’s challenge to the prosecutor’s “short report of circumstances” was unpreserved because he did not raise any deficiency in the circuit court, despite having 30 days post-judgment to seek correction under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.3.

Justice Bronni concurred, emphasizing the need to analyze harmlessness for statutory error and for a Confrontation Clause violation separately, applying the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to the constitutional question (Delaware v. Van Arsdall).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Arkansas State Crime Lab admissibility and “attestation”: Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313 (the majority’s body cites § 12-12-312 by slip, but both the parties and the concurrence reference § 12-12-313). The Court relies on the statute’s requirement that crime lab autopsy reports are admissible only when “duly attested to by the Director of the State Crime Laboratory or his or her assistants, associates, or deputies.”
• Nard v. State, 304 Ark. 159, 801 S.W.2d 634 (1990): Defines “attest” as an official certification attesting to the truth of the contents; merely signing the report is insufficient. This case anchors the Court’s conclusion that the autopsy report’s signatures did not satisfy statutory attestation.
• Harmless-error framework for evidentiary hearsay:
  • Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 12 (no reversal absent prejudice).
  • Proctor v. State, 349 Ark. 648, 79 S.W.3d 370 (2002) (erroneous admission of hearsay can be harmless).
  • Lawson v. State, 2024 Ark. 143, 697 S.W.3d 529 (error is harmless if evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is slight).
• Confrontation Clause harmlessness:
  • McNeil-Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 54, 661 S.W.3d 195 (Confrontation Clause violations are subject to harmless-error review; factors mirror Van Arsdall).
  • Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (concurrence quotes and applies; assess importance and cumulative nature of the statement, corroboration, scope of other cross-examination, and the overall strength of the State’s case).
• Accomplice liability:
  • Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, 588 S.W.3d 1; Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398, 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002); Hatcher v. State, 2011 Ark. 325 (no distinction between principal and accomplice; liability extends to the conduct of both).
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-403(b)(2) (Repl. 2024) (concurrence: accomplice liability in result-of-conduct crimes; culpability where defendant attempts to aid in conduct causing the result).
• Autopsy testimony and prejudice where cause of death is undisputed:
  • Sauerwin v. State, 363 Ark. 324, 214 S.W.3d 266 (2005) (no prejudice from a medical examiner’s testimony about an autopsy prepared by another examiner when cause of death is not contested).
• Allocution and preservation:
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-106(b) (right of allocution).
  • Goff v. State, 341 Ark. 567, 19 S.W.3d 579 (2000) (failure to allow allocution is reversible error, but not where no objection was made).
• Prosecutor’s “short report of circumstances” and preservation:
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 12-27-113(c) (short report, prepared by prosecutor, approved by sentencing judge; includes aggravating/extenuating circumstances).
  • Woods v. State, 323 Ark. 605, 916 S.W.2d 728 (1996) (defects in required forms must be raised to the trial court for possible correction).
  • Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.3 (30-day window post-judgment to move to correct). The Court relies on this to reject the preservation argument for the short report claim.

Legal Reasoning

1) Statutory Attestation and Erroneous Admission. The State Crime Lab statute allows autopsy reports to be received as competent evidence only if they are “duly attested” by the lab director or authorized deputies/assistants. The Court, drawing on Nard’s definition, reiterated that a mere signature of the report’s preparer does not satisfy “attestation.” Because the autopsy report lacked the statutory attestation, the circuit court erred in admitting it. The trial court’s reliance on a “waiver” rationale—Fort’s failure to subpoena a crime lab witness or give notice of intent to cross-examine—could not cure the missing attestation. In short, statutory attestation is a condition of admissibility; cross-examination notice affects a defendant’s right to insist on live testimony, not the baseline attestation requirement.

2) Harmless-Error Treatment of the Autopsy Report. Despite the statutory error, the Court found no prejudice for two interlocking reasons:

• Cause of death was undisputed and cumulative. Multiple witnesses testified that Bruce died at the scene from gunshot wounds. Physical evidence reinforced this: .40-caliber casings and bullets, including mushroomed rounds indicating shots fired after the victim fell to the asphalt. In these circumstances, the autopsy report’s conclusion—death by multiple gunshot wounds—did not add anything material beyond what jurors already had from live testimony (see Sauerwin).
• Accomplice liability made the “which bullet” question legally irrelevant. Fort’s prejudice theory hinged on proving that Walker’s bullet, not his, killed Bruce. But under Arkansas accomplice law (Price, Cook, Hatcher), that does not matter: an accomplice is criminally liable for the acts of his confederate in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The record contained overwhelming evidence that Fort and Walker acted together—video of the two men armed at the doorway, eyewitness identification of Fort shooting Bruce after Walker fired, and matching ballistics. Thus, even if the autopsy author had testified and even if cross-examination had revealed uncertainty about the fatal bullet, the legal outcome would not change.

On this record, the Court applied the state’s harmlessness test (overwhelming evidence + slight error) and held the erroneous admission of the autopsy report did not warrant reversal. The majority also stated—albeit in a footnote—that even assuming a Confrontation Clause violation, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the same reasoning.

3) Concurrence: Separate Harmless-Error Inquiries. Justice Bronni agreed with the outcome but cautioned that statutory evidentiary harmlessness and Confrontation Clause harmlessness are not the same. The constitutional harmlessness inquiry (Van Arsdall) asks whether, assuming the full damaging potential of cross-examination were realized, the court can nevertheless find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. He applied those factors and concluded that, because accomplice liability negated the importance of pinpointing the fatal shot, any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This concurrence is instructive for trial and appellate courts: treat the two harmlessness analyses distinctly and explicitly.

4) Allocution and Preservation. Arkansas law requires courts, before pronouncing judgment, to ask a defendant whether there is any legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-106(b)). Although denial of allocution can be reversible error, Arkansas law also requires a timely objection to preserve the issue. The record showed Fort was not afforded allocution, but he made no objection; the claim was unpreserved (Goff).

5) Prosecutor’s Short Report of Circumstances and Preservation. Arkansas Code § 12-27-113(c) mandates a short report of aggravating and extenuating circumstances, prepared by the prosecutor and approved by the sentencing judge, to accompany commitment papers. Fort argued the report was deficient and lacked judicial approval. Relying on Woods and Rule 33.3, the Court held that any defect in such required forms must be raised in the circuit court for correction; Fort had 30 days after judgment to do so but did not. Consequently, the issue was unpreserved.

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision affects trial practice in several concrete ways:

• Crime Lab Reports:
  • Attestation is mandatory. Prosecutors cannot simply file an autopsy report signed by its preparer or rely on defense inaction; the report must be “duly attested” by the lab director or authorized deputy/assistant to be admissible under § 12-12-313.
  • Unavailability of the preparer (e.g., illness) does not relax attestation requirements. The statute supplies a pathway for admission without live testimony, but attestation remains a predicate.
  • Defense counsel should scrutinize attestation and consider timely notices/subpoenas if live cross-examination is desired. Even where admission without live testimony is permissible, the lack of attestation is a categorical defect that can be fatal to admissibility—though harmlessness remains a real hurdle on appeal if cause of death is uncontested.
• Confrontation Clause Harmlessness:
  • The concurrence signals that Arkansas appellate courts should separately conduct the Van Arsdall harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt analysis rather than collapsing it into general evidentiary harmlessness.
  • In accomplice-liability cases, medical examiner evidence about the precise fatal injury may often be of limited constitutional importance if guilt does not turn on the identity of the fatal shot.
• Accomplice Liability:
  • This case reinforces that, where defendants act in concert to commit a homicide, liability does not hinge on which person’s bullet killed the victim. Prosecutors should marshal evidence of joint action; defense counsel must address the accomplice theory head-on rather than focusing solely on the fatal shot attribution.
• Allocution:
  • Trial judges should affirmatively offer allocution as required by § 16-90-106(b). Defense counsel should contemporaneously object if the opportunity is omitted; otherwise, the claim is unpreserved on direct appeal.
• Short Report of Circumstances (DOC Commitment):
  • Prosecutors must prepare, and judges must approve, a report addressing aggravating and extenuating circumstances.
  • Defense counsel should review the report promptly post-judgment and file a motion to correct within 30 days under Rule 33.3 to preserve any challenge.

In broader terms, Fort confirms that even clear statutory errors in admitting forensic reports may not warrant reversal where the State’s case is otherwise overwhelming and key facts (such as cause of death) are uncontested. At the same time, it encourages cleaner statutory compliance in the first instance to avoid appellate risk.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Attestation vs. Signature:
  • Signature: The author signs the report. Alone, that does not satisfy Arkansas’s crime lab statute.
  • Attestation: An official certification by the lab director or authorized deputies/assistants affirming the report’s contents as competent evidence. Think of it as a formal, statutory certificate that elevates the report from hearsay to admissible evidence without live testimony.
• Self-Authentication Under § 12-12-313:
  • Arkansas provides a special statutory route for crime lab reports to be admitted without live testimony, but only if the report is properly attested. Defendants can still insist on cross-examination by giving timely notice; failure to do so waives the right to insist on live testimony, not the attestation requirement itself.
• Harmless Error:
  • State evidentiary errors: Reversal requires prejudice; errors are harmless if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is slight.
  • Confrontation Clause errors: Must be harmless “beyond a reasonable doubt”—a stricter standard. Courts ask whether, assuming cross-examination would expose the report’s full “damaging potential,” the verdict still would not change (Van Arsdall factors).
• Accomplice Liability:
  • If two people assist one another in committing a crime, each is liable for the acts of both. In a homicide, a defendant can be guilty even if his confederate fired the fatal shot, provided he aided, attempted to aid, or engaged jointly in the conduct causing the death.
• Allocution:
  • The defendant’s right to speak or present legal cause before sentencing. In Arkansas, the court must offer it; failure to object when it is omitted typically forfeits the claim on appeal.
• Prosecutor’s Short Report of Circumstances:
  • A required report sent with commitment papers summarizing circumstances of the offense, including aggravating and mitigating features, prepared by the prosecutor and approved by the judge. Challenges must be raised in the trial court—ideally within 30 days under Rule 33.3—to be preserved.

Notable Drafting Note on Statutory Citation

The majority opinion initially references Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313 but later quotes from “§ 12-12-312(a).” The concurrence and the parties’ arguments confirm that § 12-12-313 is the operative provision governing admissibility and attestation of State Crime Lab reports. Practitioners should treat the body’s reference to § 12-12-312 as a typographical slip and continue to rely on § 12-12-313 for the attestation and admission framework.

Conclusion

Fort v. State crystallizes key principles at the intersection of forensic documentary evidence, confrontation rights, and accomplice liability. The Court unambiguously reiterates that State Crime Lab autopsy reports require statutory attestation to be admissible. Yet the Court also demonstrates that erroneous admission may be harmless where the cause of death is not disputed and the defendant’s culpability is grounded in accomplice liability, rendering the identity of the fatal shot legally irrelevant. The concurrence usefully reminds courts to separately conduct harmless-error analyses for state law and constitutional errors.

On the procedural front, the case underscores the imperative of preserving allocution and “short report” issues in the trial court—either contemporaneously at sentencing (allocution) or by timely post-judgment motion (Rule 33.3). Practically, Fort will prompt prosecutors and trial courts to ensure meticulous compliance with § 12-12-313’s attestation requirement and with § 12-27-113(c)’s commitment documentation, while defense counsel should vigilantly police these points to build or preserve meaningful appellate issues. The decision thus refines Arkansas practice on forensic report admissibility and solidifies the contours of harmless-error review in homicide prosecutions premised on accomplice liability.