PA Court Upholds Conviction for Drug Delivery Death Case
Posted in Constitutional Rights on July 20, 2025
In Commonwealth v. Bloom, 2025 PA Super 143, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the conviction of Bloom for drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD), delivery of a controlled substance, and recklessly endangering another person. addressed a constitutional challenge under the Confrontation Clause—a recurring issue in drug delivery resulting in death (DDRD) cases involving toxicology reports and expert witnesses. The Court’s opinion clarifies when a toxicology report can be used by an expert without violating the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against the accused.
Background of the Case
Bloom was convicted after he gave his girlfriend a “very small line” of what he called heroin to alleviate a headache. That heroin was later found to contain a lethal dose of fentanyl. Although Bloom claimed he was joking and didn’t intend for her to take it, she ingested the substance and died shortly afterward. Toxicology reports confirmed she had approximately 30 times the therapeutic limit of fentanyl in her system.
Bloom was not arrested until a year after the incident, and he proceeded to a jury trial in December 2023. The jury convicted him of all charges except involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 6 to 12 years in state prison.
Bloom was convicted of DDRD and related offenses after providing heroin—later found to be laced with fentanyl—to his girlfriend, who died of an overdose shortly after ingestion. At trial, the Commonwealth introduced testimony from a pathologist who concluded the cause of death was a fentanyl overdose. That conclusion relied heavily on a toxicology report prepared by a non-testifying analyst.
Bloom objected, arguing that allowing the pathologist to relay the toxicologist’s findings without cross-examination violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
Legal Issue: Can an Expert Rely on a Nontestifying Analyst’s Report?
Bloom’s argument centered on a well-known constitutional principle: under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), a defendant has the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who provide “testimonial” evidence.
He further relied on the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), which held that when an expert restates a non-testifying analyst’s findings—and those findings are used for their truth—it may violate the Confrontation Clause if the report is testimonial.
Court’s Ruling: No Violation of the Confrontation Clause
The Superior Court stated that Bloomit “only had a Confrontation Clause right to confront the toxicologist who drafted the report relied on by [Commnowealth expert] if the report constituted testimonial hearsay.” The Court ruled that the toxicology report was not testimonial because:
It was ordered by a medical examiner during a routine autopsy to determine cause of death, not to aid a criminal prosecution
there was no evidence that the report was prepared as part of a criminal investigation
primary purpose of the report was to establish the victim’s cause of death, it was not made to prove some fact in a criminal proceeding,to serve an evidentiary purpose,or to aid in a police investigation.
Because the primary purpose of the toxicology report was medical, not evidentiary, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated.
Why This Matters for Drug Crime Defense in Pennsylvania
This ruling is a critical precedent for defense attorneys challenging expert testimony in criminal cases. It provides guidance on how courts may distinguish between:
Forensic lab reports created at the request of law enforcement (testimonial) – like the blood tests in DUI cases or drug tests in drug possession cases
Medical examiner toxicology reports used in autopsies (non-testimonial).
If a report is not created for trial, prosecutors can introduce it through another expert without violating the Confrontation Clause.
However, this line is fact-specific. If police initiate the report or it’s created with trial in mind, a skilled defense attorney can argue for exclusion under Smith v. Arizona and Crawford.