Opinion ID: 1991291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The DNA Reports.

Text: Following the rape, medical personnel recovered microscopic samples from the victim. Later, pursuant to a court order, medical personnel took microscopic samples from McCurry. Microscopic samples were also taken from another man who was a suspect in the rape. The State sent these samples to the FBI for DNA (shorthand term for deoxyribonucleic acid) testing. See State v. Brown, 470 N.W.2d 30, 31 (Iowa 1991) (describing DNA and DNA fingerprinting process). The FBI furnished the State with two reports regarding its analysis of the samples. One report concluded the DNA profile from material on the victim's vaginal swab matched the DNA profile from McCurry's blood sample. The report also indicated that [t]he probability of selecting an unrelated individual at random from the population having a DNA profile matching [McCurry's] is approximately 1 in 180 million in Caucasians, 1 in 150 million in Blacks and 1 in 60 million in Hispanics. (The victim is Caucasian; McCurry is Black.) John Mertens did the analysis and prepared the two DNA reports. He is an FBI analyst and DNA expert. Consistent with his first DNA report, Mertens testified that, in his opinion, there was a positive match between the DNA samples taken from McCurry and the samples taken from the victim. Also consistent with the first DNA report, Mertens testified as follows: Q. Were you able to arrive at a frequency opinion for Mr. McCurry's samples based upon all four loci? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. And what is your opinion? A. Based upon the DNA profiles that I have developed, the chances of going out into the population and selecting at random another individual that would have the same DNA profile as this is approximately one in 180 million in Caucasians, one in 150 million in Blacks and one in 60 million in Hispanics. Thereafter the State offered the first DNA report which the court received into evidence over McCurry's hearsay objection. Mertens' testimony also included the information contained in the second DNA report: Q. Now, what was the reason for making a comparison against another individual? A. I had received a court order dated August 9, 1994, wherein I was requested by the court to compare the DNA profiles that I developed in this particular case to DNA profiles that had been developed in another case which had been submitted to the FBI laboratory for examination to see whether or not that particular individual could be included or excluded as a possible contributor to the DNA profiles from this particular case. Q. Now, the other case was unrelated to [this] one? A. Yes, that's true. Q. And the comparison that you made was with a separate individual from Mr. McCurry? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. What were the results of that comparison? A. The results of DNA comparisons that I made between the questioned DNA in this particular case and the known samples from that other case was that these DNA profiles were not a match, and that other individual was excluded as a contributor to the DNA profiles in this case. Following this testimony, the State offered the second DNA report which the court also received into evidence over McCurry's hearsay objection. As he did in the district court, McCurry contends here that the reports were hearsay. More specifically, he asserts the admission of the reports violated Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(8)(B)(i), (iii), and (v). Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Iowa R.Evid. 801(c). Generally, hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions in the rules. Iowa R.Evid. 802. The two DNA reports were hearsay. Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(8) is the public records exception to the hearsay rule. It states in pertinent part: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: .... (8) Public Records and Reports. (A) To the extent not otherwise provided in (B), records, reports, statements, or data compilations in any form of a public office or agency setting forth its regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities, or matters observed pursuant to a duty imposed by law and as to which there was a duty to report, or factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. Rule 803(8)(B) lists five kinds of evidence not admissible under the public records exception: (B) The following are not within this exception to the hearsay rule: (i) investigative reports by police and other law enforcement personnel; (ii) investigative reports prepared by or for a government, a public office or an agency when offered by it in a case in which it is a party; (iii) factual findings offered by the state or political subdivision in criminal cases; (iv) factual findings resulting from special investigation of a particular complaint, case, or incident; (v) any matter as to which the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. (Emphasis added.) McCurry believes the district court should not have admitted the DNA reports because they (1) are investigative reports, (2) are prepared by law enforcement personnel, (3) contain factual findings offered by the State, and (4) are inherently unreliable evidence of alleged criminal conduct. Apparently the reason investigative reports prepared by law enforcement personnel are not admissible hearsay is because such reports may not be as reliable as some other forms of official records and that, therefore, availability of witnesses for cross-examination may be more appropriate than introduction of the evidence through records. James A. Adams & Kasey W. Kincaid, 7 Iowa Practice: Evidence § 803.8, at 443-44 (West 1988). Recently, we had occasion to interpret rule 803(8)(B)(i), (ii), and (iv). See State v. Reitenbaugh, 392 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 1986). In Reitenbaugh, the State successfully entered an arrest warrant into evidence as a public record. The warrant contained statements of the defendant's probation officer that the defendant had failed to maintain contact and his whereabouts were unknown. The probation officer did not testify. In reversing the defendant's convictions, we held these statements were the kind of investigative report and factual findings which subparts (B)(i), (B)(ii), and (B)(iv), make inadmissible. Those hearsay statements were made by a probation officer, a person who was plainly acting as a peace officer and allied in this instance with fellow peace officers. They were inadmissible as investigative reports by ... law enforcement personnel [pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(8)(B)(i)]. The probation officer's statements were also made inadmissible by rule 803(8)(B)(ii), because they plainly were part of an investigative report prepared by the State for the purpose of having defendant arrested for violation of conditions of his pre-trial release. Furthermore, statements of the probation officer constituted factual findings resulting from the special investigation of a particular incident, defendant's failure to report, thereby making those hearsay statements inadmissible under rule 803(8)(B)(iv). Id. at 489-90 (citation omitted). In Reitenbaugh, we recognized that the three specific subpart B exceptions to the admissibility of public records and reports represent sound public policy. The public policy we referred to is that in criminal cases the State ought not be allowed to introduce substantive evidence tending to prove commission of the charged offenses without calling as witnesses, subject to cross-examination, the persons who have specially investigated particular incidents and reported in writing on those investigations. The better policy is to require the prosecution to call its investigators as witnesses rather than allowing the State to satisfy its burden of proof with written reports bearing a certain facial authenticity which a jury might attribute to public records. Id. at 490. One crucial difference separates this case from Reitenbaugh. In Reitenbaugh, the probation officer who made the statements in the arrest warrant did not testify. The statements were not about routine, established factual matters, but bore instead on the very elements of the offense charged. So the defendant had no opportunity to test the trustworthiness of the statements through cross-examination of the probation officer. Allowing the report into evidence would therefore have undermined the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witness. In contrast, here, the witness who did the analysis and prepared the reports testified. He underwent vigorous cross-examination about the validity of his opinions contained in the two DNA reports. And his testimony mirrored the statements contained in the reports. So the public policy we were concerned about in Reitenbaugh and mentioned earlier was served. We therefore fail to see how McCurry was harmed by the admission of these reports. The reports were merely cumulative of evidence already in the record. See State v. Rice, 543 N.W.2d 884, 887 (Iowa 1996) (no prejudice where hearsay evidence is admitted and substantially similar evidence is admitted without objection). We find no prejudicial error here.