Opinion ID: 2622136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Exposed to the public

Text: ś 112 Lastly, we must determine if Athan's saliva and DNA were exposed to the public. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d at 29, 60 P.3d 46. ś 113 People expose to the public their physical description, personal characteristics, soles of shoes, and sound of voice. McKinney, 148 Wash.2d at 27-29, 60 P.3d 46 (physical description on Department of Licensing records); State v. Selvidge, 30 Wash.App. 406, 411, 635 P.2d 736 (1981) (tread pattern on soles of shoes); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 5-6, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973) (sound of voice). However, these types of outward physical attributes are not analogous to either saliva or DNA. Saliva does not possess the same descriptive qualities as a person's physical description, tread pattern on shoes, or a person's voice. It is merely the material from which such information is obtained. ś 114 While DNA is comparable in some ways to other physical characteristics because it provides information regarding identity, it reveals far more information than a person's voice or fingerprints. See, e.g., James F. Van Orden, Recent Development, DNA Databases and Discarded Private Information?: Your License, Registration and Intimate Bodily Details, Please, 6 N.C.J.L. & Tech. 343, 352 (2005). A person's voice does not contain the kind of intimate details about a person that DNA contains. Id. Similarly, fingerprints are distinguishable from DNA because [l]ike DNA, a fingerprint identifies a person, but unlike DNA, a fingerprint says nothing about the person's health, their propensity for particular disease, race and gender characteristics, and perhaps even propensity for certain conduct. United States v. Kincade, 379 F.3d 813, 842 n. 3 (2004) (Gould, J., concurring). ś 115 In stark contrast to saliva, fingerprints, and other physical characteristics, one never exposes one's DNA to the public. Van Orden, 6 N.C.J.L. & Tech. at 352. The highly personal information that is revealed after analysis of one's DNA is never exposed to the public without the aid of modern technological tools. Id. We do not expose DNA to the public merely by virtue of the fact that it is contained in other material, such as blood, hair, skin, or saliva. We do not expose DNA to the public when it can be seen only with specialized equipment. ś 116 Because Athan's saliva and DNA were not exposed to the public, I would conclude that Athan retained his privacy interests in his saliva and DNA when he licked an envelope and mailed it to the detectives. ś 117 In sum, because the government intruded on Athan's privacy interests in his saliva and DNA without authority of law, [4] the DNA evidence should be inadmissible and the case should be remanded for a new trial without it or the conviction should be vacated.
ś 118 I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that Detective Gregg Mixsell's testimony about a statement made by James did not violate Crawford. The majority makes two errors in its analysis. First, it declines to address the straightforward question of whether James' statement was testimonial. Second, it erroneously concludes that James' statement did not violate Crawford because it was not offered to prove the truth of the statement. ś 119 With regard to whether James' statement was testimonial, the majority assumes that James' statement was testimonial for the purposes of its analysis when it need not sidestep such an obvious conclusion. A person in James' position would undoubtedly be aware that his statement could be used to prosecute his brother. In fact, James demonstrated his awareness that the statement might be used for this purpose by subsequently altering it. I would hold that James' statement was testimonial. ś 120 As to the question of whether James' testimonial statement violated Crawford, it is clear that James' statement was offered to prove the truth of what he asserted. Mixsell provided explicit details about James' statement and the fact that James was the source of the information. Mixsell testified that he told Athan his brother saw him with a large box on a grocery cart, that [James] had told detectives he saw him with the cart and box the night before. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Jan. 13, 2004) at 126. Even the majority acknowledges that Mixsell's testimony revealed the content of James' statement. Majority at 42. However, it then proceeds to accept with little analysis the State's arguments about the intended purpose for introducing the statement. ś 121 The State argued that it offered James' statement in part to provide context for Athan's denial of James' claim. However, Athan denied only that he had a cardboard box on a grocery cart. He did not deny that he was in the area the night before the police found Sumstad's body. He did not deny that he had a luggage cart loaded with firewood. Therefore, Mixsell's testimony effectively brought into evidence James' out-of-court statement about the cardboard box without giving Athan an opportunity to impeach James on that question in court. ś 122 The State also argued that it used Mixsell's testimony to show how the defendant's story had changed since 1982. However, Athan's story did not change. He admitted in 1982 that he was near the crime scene collecting firewood the night before police discovered Sumstad's body. When detectives questioned him in 2002, he again admitted that he was near the crime scene the night before police discovered Sumstad's body, and again claimed he was stealing firewood. The only thing he added to his story was that he was carrying the wood on a little metal cart like you carry a briefcase or a suitcase. VRP (Jan. 13, 2004) at 126. Thus, Athan's story in 1982 was consistent with his story in 2002. Athan's story did not agree, however, with James' statement regarding the cardboard box and the grocery cart. Thus, the effect of Mixsell's testimony was to introduce an inconsistent out-of-court statement without providing Athan an opportunity to impeach James. ś 123 Chief Justice Alexander argues that although the trial court's admission of James' statement implicated Crawford, the error was harmless because, based on other evidence presented at trial, the outcome of the trial would not have been different had it been excluded. Concurrence at 46. He cites DNA evidence found at the scene, Athan's admission that he was in the area where Sumstad's body was found the night before, and testimony that Athan knew and was sexually interested in Sumstad to support his argument that there was sufficient other evidence to convict Athan without James' statement. Id. However, the DNA evidence found at the crime scene was meaningless without the DNA the detectives unlawfully obtained from Athan. Athan's admission that he was in the area where police found Sumstad's body the night before demonstrated nothing in the absence of DNA connecting him to the crime scene. Athan's admission that he knew and was sexually interested in Sumstad demonstrated only that he may have had sex with her, not that he killed her. Because James' statement appeared to validate evidence that was otherwise of little value without the unlawfully obtained DNA, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the outcome of the trial would not have been different had it been excluded. ś 124 I would hold that the trial court's admission of Mixsell's testimony about James' statement implicated Crawford. James did not testify at trial, and Athan did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him. Additionally, the State introduced James' statement to prove the truth of the matter assertedâ that James saw Athan with a cardboard box on a grocery cart near the area where police later found Sumstad's body in a box. I would further hold that the admission of James' statement was not harmless error.