Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Challenge Scientific Evidence

Text: At the penalty phase, the prosecution introduced evidence of electrophoretic testing of dried blood that had been found on handcuffs recovered from a shed located behind defendant's residence. (Electrophoretic testing allows typing of individual blood proteins and enzymes found in a blood sample by a method that separates electrically charged molecules ( People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 206, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949.).) The blood was similar in type to Shelah's. The prosecution also introduced evidence related to electrophoretic testing of a semen stain found on Shelah's sweatpants; on cross-examination, the prosecution's expert acknowledged that no conclusion could be drawn as to typing the semen donor, or as to the age of the stain. Defendant contends that, at the time of his trial, there was considerable debate regarding the admissibility of electrophoretic evidence, citing People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516, reversed on other grounds, California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 107 S.Ct. 837, 93 L.Ed.2d 934, a decision in which we held that testimony of the same forensic expert, Faye Springer, regarding electrophoretic evidence should have been excluded from the trial. Defendant contends that trial counsel's failure to object to the admission of the electrophoretic evidence, and counsel's failure to request a foundational hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's position is unpersuasive, because the record on appeal fails to reflect that trial counsel lacked a tactical basis for declining to challenge the electrophoresis evidence or request a foundational hearing, and counsel's decisions regarding those matters were not ones for which there could be no satisfactory explanation. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th.264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; People v. Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 926, 936, 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212; People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d 572, 581,189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144.) Defendant's reliance upon People v. Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 230 Cal.Rptr. 834, 726 P.2d 516, is misplaced. In Brown, we held that the trial court erred in overruling an objection on the ground of improper foundation to admitting forensic analysis of blood and semen stains. Contrary to defendant's position, we did not reject the reliability of electrophoretic analysis generally; rather, we did so in that case based upon the inadequate trial court record. Moreover, in People v. Morris, supra, 53 Cal.3d 152, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949, we held that admission of electrophoresis testing was generally accepted in the scientific community in 1987  a date prior to its introduction at the penalty phase in defendant's trial. ( Id. at pp. 206-208, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949; see also People v. Reilly, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d 1127, 242 Cal.Rptr. 496.) Defense counsel was not required to mount a meritless challenge to the acceptance of, such evidence. We therefore perceive no deficiency in counsel's performance regarding the prosecution's presentation of electrophoretic evidence.