Opinion ID: 1036031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of motion to produce partially

Text: matching profiles in DPS database ¶21 Benson argues that the trial court violated his rights to due process and a fair trial by denying his motion to require the State to produce partially matching DNA profiles within the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) database. We review a trial court’s discovery ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roque, 213 Ariz. 193, 205 ¶ 21, 141 P.3d 368, 380 (2006). ¶22 Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.1(g) provides that the court may order disclosure of information not otherwise addressed in the rule if the defendant shows a “substantial need” for the information and “the defendant is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.” Ariz. R. Crim. P. 15.1(g). To support his motion, Benson submitted transcripts from an evidentiary hearing addressing an identical request in an unrelated case, State v. DeLuca, Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR-2001-005011. In DeLuca, experts for each side agreed that the “product rule” is the accepted model used to 3 In 2010, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-2203, which replaced the Frye standard for admitting expert testimony with the Daubert standard. 2010 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 302 (2d Reg. Sess.). See generally Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Before Benson’s trial, however, our court of appeals declared the statute unconstitutional. Lear v. Fields, 226 Ariz. 226, 233 ¶ 22, 245 P.3d 911, 918 (App. 2011). After Benson’s trial, this Court amended Rule 702 to correspond to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. 6 STATE v. TRENT CHRISTOPHER BENSON Opinion of the Court compute the probability and frequency of random DNA matches among a general population. See State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 209-10 ¶ 68, 84 P.3d 456, 474-75 (2004) (recognizing the validity of the product rule); cf. State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 582-83, 858 P.2d 1152, 1185-86 (1993) (providing an example of product rule calculation). Defense expert Dr. Laurence Mueller testified he needed the partial-match information from the DPS offender database to test whether the product rule accurately predicts the number of matches. The State’s expert, Dr. Ranajit Chakraborty, countered that it would be inappropriate to use information from the DPS offender database to challenge the accuracy of the product rule because the database profiles are not sufficiently random. ¶23 Benson first argues that the trial court erred by hinging its ruling on whether his discovery request was “overly burdensome” rather than focusing on whether the requested information was relevant and exculpatory. But the court did not focus solely on whether Benson’s request would unduly burden DPS. Rather, the court denied the motion for several reasons, including the unsuitability of the database for Dr. Mueller’s tests, the novelty of his model, and the availability of other information to inform his tests. ¶24 Benson next argues that the information was exculpatory, and the State therefore was required to disclose it under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). “Under Brady, the State violates a defendant’s right to due process if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 (2012). Evidence is “material” for purposes of Brady “when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶25 Benson has failed to demonstrate that the requested discovery is exculpatory or material. Dr. Mueller was uncertain whether the results of his research would verify the validity of the product rule or dispute it. Cf. State v. Youngblood, 173 Ariz. 502, 506, 844 P.2d 1152, 1156 (1993) (finding no Brady violation when “one could only say that the unpreserved evidence could have been subjected to tests, the results of which might have been exculpatory or inculpatory”). And Dr. Chakraborty testified it would be inappropriate to challenge the validity of the product rule with the DPS database because it contains an unknown number and type of relatives, an unknown number of duplicate profiles, and no identifying information about the offender’s ethnicity and race. Finally, even if Dr. Mueller successfully challenged the “astronomical” probability of random 7 STATE v. TRENT CHRISTOPHER BENSON Opinion of the Court matches produced by applying the product rule, Benson acknowledged to the court that the probability of a random match would remain extremely remote, making a different trial result improbable. The State did not violate Brady.