Opinion ID: 2571644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kelly Hearing

Text: Defendant's next assignment of error is related to a question we decided in People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th 47, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 262, 954 P.2d 525 (Venegas ). In Venegas, we recognized the general scientific acceptance of restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis as a means of comparing the DNA in a known sample (e.g., blood from a suspect) with the DNA in a questioned sample (e.g., blood or semen taken from a crime scene). Venegas further found general scientific acceptance of the modified ceiling principle, recommended for use by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1992, [4] as a forensically reliable method of calculating the statistical probabilities of a match between the evidentiary samples and the DNA of an unrelated person chosen at random from the general population. We determined that calculations made under the modified ceiling approach  which modifies the product rule [5] in such a way as to select random match probability figures most favorable to the accused from the scientifically based range of probabilities  qualify for admission under the Kelly test. [6] ( Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 84-90, [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 262, 954 P.2d 525].) ( People v. Soto (1999) 21 Cal.4th 512, 514-515, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 34, 981 P.2d 958 (Soto) .) In this case, in ruling on the question whether the prosecution had carried its burden under Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at page 30, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240 of establishing that RFLP analysis and the modified ceiling principle were generally accepted in the scientific community, the trial court, at the request of the prosecution, took judicial notice of, among other things, the testimony given by an expert witness, Dr. Patrick Michael Conneally, in an earlier, unrelated trial in the same county (Los Angeles). This, defendant contends, was error. In making a Kelly ruling, defendant argues, a trial court may not, consistent with the hearsay rule and the constitutional right of confrontation, take judicial notice of expert testimony given in another case. We need not reach the question whether it is error for a trial court to take judicial notice, over objection, of an expert's testimony in another Kelly hearing, for any error in this regard was clearly harmless here. First and foremost, the trial court's conclusion  that RFLP analysis and the modified ceiling principle were generally accepted in the scientific community by the time the hearing was held in this case  was correct. In Venegas, we held that RFLP analysis and the modified ceiling principle were generally accepted in the scientific community in 1992, when the trial court in that case made its Kelly ruling ( Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 57, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 262, 954 P.2d 525), and this case was tried two years later. Second, when the trial court granted the prosecution's motion that it take judicial notice of Dr. Conneally's testimony in the earlier case, the grant was expressly conditioned on defendant's having an opportunity to call and cross-examine Dr. Conneally. Defendant chose not to take advantage of that opportunity. Therefore, defendant effectively waived the confrontation issue. Finally, had the trial court declined to take judicial notice of Dr. Conneally's testimony in the earlier case, and thus forced the prosecution to call him in this case, there is no reason to believe his testimony would have differed in any significant respect from his earlier testimony. Defense counsel apparently came to that conclusion for he declined the trial court's invitation to call Dr. Conneally and cross-examine him. Defendant contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not call live witnesses to refute the expert Kelly testimony that was given in the other case and judicially noticed in this case. Defense counsel gave a coherent explanation as to why he chose not to call live witnesses  he was satisfied that the evidence already in the record adequately demonstrated a lack of consensus in the scientific community. (We reiterate that this case was tried four years before we held in Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th 47, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 262, 954 P.2d 525, that RFLP analysis and the modified ceiling prinicple were generally accepted in the scientific community.) Accordingly, defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit. (See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 956 P.2d 374 [whether to call certain witnesses is a matter of trial tactics, unless the decision results from unreasonable failure to investigate].) The remaining arguments defendant makes with regard to the Kelly question also lack merit. Defendant contends the trial court candidly admitted that it had not even read the 1992 NRC Report. [7] To the contrary, the record reveals the court had reviewed the report before making its ruling. Defendant contends the trial court did not understand that in a Kelly hearing, the prosecution has the burden of proving that a new scientific technique has gained general acceptance in a particular field. The source of the confusion here was the trial court's statement that it would bifurcate the Kelly hearing, looking first to the evidence offered by the prosecution to see whether, standing on its own, it demonstrated the requisite general acceptance, and then the burden would shift to the defense to rebut that evidence. However, as the Attorney General points out, the court clarified that it did not mean that in any way I feel the burden has shifted to the defendant. The burden has always been [on] the People. Rather, by bifurcating the process, the court was merely trying to expedite it, by pointing out if the prosecution had failed to make a prima facie case as to general acceptance, there would have been no need for the defense to go any further. However, having concluded that the prosecution had carried its burden of proving general acceptance, the court wished the defense to understand that, [f]rom a practical standpoint, you are faced with a situation of going forward or losing the issue.