# INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTHESTATEOFWASHINGTOg g|
CO 

## STATEOFWASHINGTON, TM Respondent,

v. S.K., Appellant. FILED: September23, 2013 

## No. 68653-4-1 ^ ^>: a*, wr; 

### DIVISION ONE ^ ^~ 

## UNPUBLISHEDOPINION & °^

Appelwick, J. — S.K. appeals his conviction for residential burglary. He argues that he was deprived of his right to present a defense when the trial courtexcluded the testimonyof his expertwitness. We affirm. FACTS James Nguyen returned home on September 9, 2011 to find his home burglarized. Several rooms were ransacked, and many of his family's possessions
were gone. Nguyen had a television in his basementthatwas normally mounted to the wall, but that he found lying on the floor. King County Sheriffs Deputy Jeremy Davy inspected the television and found latent prints. Because the prints were visible to the naked eye and developed quickly, Deputy Davy determined that they were recent. He
was ableto collectsixprintsfrom the television. King County Print Examiner Cynthia Zeller analyzed the prints, and compared them to a list of candidates produced by the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). S.K. was among the candidates. To compare the prints, Zeller conducted a friction ridge analysis. Friction ridge skin is a raised section on the underside of the hand that creates a unique pattern in every individual. The friction ridge analysis of S.K.'s AFIS prints and the prints from the television resulted in aNo. 68653-4-1/2 

### match. Zeller then took new printsfrom S.K., and compared them to the printsfrom the television. Theywere again a match. 

## S.K. movedforaFrve1 hearing onthe admissibilityoffriction ridge analysis and sought to exclude Zeller's testimony. In his motion, S.K. relied on the literature of Dr. 

### Simon Cole, a criminology professor with a Ph.D. in science and technology studies. The court denied the motion, concluding that friction ridge analysis is accepted in the relevant scientific community. The courtfurther noted that Dr. Cole was not a member ofthatcommunity. S.K. soughtto call Dr. Cole to testify attrial. When the court inquired aboutthe 

### nature of his testimony, S.K. responded that Dr. Cole would "assess the weight" of Zeller's conclusions and whether they were supported by scientific validation. S.K. conceded that Dr. Cole would not testify about the specifics ofZeller's performance of the analysis. The court excluded Dr. Cole's proffered testimony, finding that S.K. was merely renewing his Frve challenge. The courtfound S.K. guilty ofresidential burglary. S.K. timely appealed. DISCUSSION S.K. argues that, because the excluded evidence went "to the heart of the defense case," its exclusion had constitutional implications. As a general rule, when a defendant claims a denial of constitutional rights, our review is de novo. State v. Iniquez. 167 Wn.2d 273, 280, 217 P.3d 768 (2009). However, when the defendant claims a violation ofhis rightto presenta case by offering experttestimony, Washington courts have "repeatedly followed" an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Lewis, 141 

### 1Frve v. Unite States. 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).No. 68653-4-1/3 

### Wn. App. 367, 385, 166 P.3d 786 (2007). CI State v. Jones. 168Wn.2d 713, 719, 230 

### P.3d 576 (2010) (reviewing de novo where defendant alleged violation ofrightto testify
or cross-examinewitnesses). 

### In addition, he contends that the trial court's exclusion of the expert testimony
was an abuse ofdiscretion. An abuse ofdiscretion occurs when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. State v. Casteilanos, 132Wn.2d 94, 97, 935 P.2d 1353 (1997). S.K. argues that the trial court erred when itfound Dr. Cole's 

### proposed testimony irrelevant. He contends that the testimony was in fact relevant, because it would have questioned Zeller's specific methods in this case and demonstrated the fallibility oflatentprint analysis ingeneral. A witness with scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge may testify thereto ifthe testimony will be helpful to the trier offact and the witness is qualified as
an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. ER 702. Practical experience is sufficientto qualify a witness as an expert. State v. Ortiz, 119Wn.2d 294, 310, 831 P.2d 1060 (1992). An otherwise qualified witness may not testify about an issue that lies outside the witness's area of expertise. State v. Weaville, 162 Wn. App. 801,824, 256 P.3d 426 (2011). Testimony must be relevant to be admissible. ER 402. Evidence is relevant if (1) it tends to prove or disprove the existence of a fact and (2) that fact is of consequence to the outcome of the case. ER 401; Davidson v. Municipality of Metro. Seattle, 43 Wn. App. 569, 573, 719 P.2d 569 (1986). A defendant has no right to have irrelevant evidence admitted in his or her defense. State v. Darden, 145 Wn.2d 612, 624,41 P.3d 1189(2002).No. 68653-4-1/4 

### When the court denied S.K.'s motion for a Frve hearing, it expressly found that friction ridge analysis is accepted in the relevant scientific community. That decision has not been appealed. Dr. Cole's opinion about whether such analysis is reliable is thus no longerrelevant. 

### The remaining question was whether Dr. Cole was competent to question the reliability of Zeller's specific process. When the court inquired on this point, S.K. admitted that Dr. Cole "would not testify that he did his own comparison or that they specificallydid this comparison wrong. He can onlytestifyto whattheir conclusion can mean." The trial court concluded Dr. Cole was not qualified to draw his own conclusions aboutthe accuracy ofZeller's printanalysis. We agree. Thetrial courtdid noterrwhen itexcluded his testimony. S.K. has not suffered a constitutional violation. We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# ttffl^-yf\jC^t 

# 6%,^ •