Opinion ID: 4538476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unidentified DNA Evidence

Text: ¶21 The State argues that the court of appeals erred in second-guessing the circuit court's discretionary decision to exclude the unidentified DNA evidence found on A.R.'s perioral and underwear swabs. An appellate court upholds a circuit court's exercise of discretion to admit or exclude evidence where it examined the relevant facts, applied a proper legal standard, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a reasonable conclusion. State v. Chamblis, 2015 WI 53, ¶20, 362 Wis. 2d 370, 864 N.W.2d 806. ¶22 Here, the proper legal standard is the balancing test set forth in Wis. Stat. § 904.03: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Applying this proper legal standard to all of the relevant facts using a demonstrated rational process, it was reasonable for the circuit court to conclude that the probative value of the unidentified DNA was extraordinarily limited. ¶23 First and foremost, Gutierrez was not the source of the DNA and no known male was identified as a contributor. The DNA was not semen or saliva as might be expected where the allegations include oral sex, attempted vaginal penetration, and ejaculation. As recognized by the circuit court, the DNA could have come from 11 No. 2017AP2364-CR a skin cell, hair follicle, or some other source deposited during an innocuous interaction. ¶24 Moreover, there was no evidence of when the DNA had been deposited. The perioral and underwear samples were not collected until roughly 24 and 48 hours after the alleged assault, respectively. Neither party could say whether the DNA found on those samples was deposited before the time of the alleged assault, or during the extended interim period afterwards. As the State emphasized, the time gap also presented the potential for contamination of the underwear, as one pair was pulled still wet from a running washing machine and the other was taken from a pile of soiled laundry. The circuit court could reasonably conclude that without knowing the critical timeframe for when the unidentified DNA evidence was deposited, the evidence had limited probative value in rebutting the State's theory that A.R. washed or wiped off Gutierrez's DNA. ¶25 Finally, A.R.'s initial description of the underwear worn during the alleged assault was inconsistent with the underwear tested. The questions regarding the timeframe, source of and contributors to the DNA, and the high potential for contamination of the underwear all gave the circuit court reasonable grounds to conclude that the DNA had low probative value. ¶26 The circuit court could also reasonably conclude that the limited probative value of the unidentified DNA evidence was substantially outweighed by the dangers of confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and waste of time pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.03. Specifically, the circuit court raised concern that the 12 No. 2017AP2364-CR questions surrounding the unidentified male DNA would lead the trial down a rabbit hole calling for speculative testimony. A jury could be confused or misled by the collateral issue of why male DNA was present and therefore distracted from the pertinent issue of whether Gutierrez's DNA had been present but was washed or wiped off. The circuit court also expressed apprehension that the expert testimony on this collateral issue would consume a significant portion of the trial. The circuit court provided for an alternative way to elicit the relevant information: defense counsel could question the expert witness generally on how DNA is transferred, how long foreign DNA remains viable on another person, and how easily DNA can be washed or wiped off. ¶27 The court of appeals disagreed with the low probative value the circuit court assigned to the unidentified DNA evidence. The court of appeals also dismissed the factors considered by the circuit court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.03: the dangers of confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time. Gutierrez, 388 Wis. 2d 312, ¶¶6, 9-10. While the court of appeals may have preferred that the circuit court give more weight to the evidence's probative value, it may not substitute its discretion for that of the circuit court. State v. Rhodes, 2011 WI 73, ¶26, 336 Wis. 2d 64, 799 N.W.2d 850. Instead, appellate courts should look for reasons to sustain a trial court's discretionary decision. State v. Wiskerchen, 2019 WI 1, ¶18, 385 Wis. 2d 120, 921 N.W.2d 730 (quoted source omitted). Our review of the record shows the circuit court applied the proper legal standard to the relevant facts and reached a reasonable discretionary decision. 13 No. 2017AP2364-CR The court of appeals thus erred in reversing the circuit court's decision to exclude the unidentified DNA evidence.