Opinion ID: 2150043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Motions Regarding DNA Testing.

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by denying several motions regarding the admission of DNA testing results. Investigators submitted oral and vaginal swabbings taken from Stacy Forsee to Cellmark Laboratories for DNA fingerprinting. The State hoped that genetic coding material (DNA) derived from semen in these swabbings could be used to identify the perpetrator. Cellmark used a testing procedure called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). However, Cellmark was unable to identify any male DNA from the samples; the only DNA identified was that of the victim. Near the date of trial, Cellmark personnel advised the State of a different type of DNA test called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which Cellmark felt might be able to be performed on the samples. Cellmark itself did not perform PCR tests and referred the State to two laboratories, including Genescreen in Dallas, Texas. At a pre-trial hearing on October 21, 1991, the State advised the court and the defense of its desire to have the new test performed. It was highly uncertain at this point whether the results could be obtained before trial. The record suggests that at this hearing the State agreed that it would dismiss charges against the defendant if the test excluded him (although the record can be read to the effect that the State only agreed to dismiss if DNA fingerprinting specifically excluded him), that the defense wanted the new test performed and agreed to the admissibility of the results (although the record can be read to the effect that the defense only agreed to have the tests conducted), and that the trial court overruled a defense request for an expert to interpret the results, holding that Genescreen personnel were sufficiently neutral to provide the defense with any expert assistance it required. On November 4, 1991, the State reported to the trial court that Genescreen had been successful in extracting male DNA from the sample sent it, and that defendant's blood matched the sperm that was found on the swab excluding 90.2 percent of the population. Contemporaneously, defendant moved for a continuance, renewed its motion for an expert to permit it to analyze the DNA test results independently, and filed a motion in limine to prohibit reference to the PCR tests until a Frye hearing [could] be conducted to assess the reliability of this novel scientific evidence. [12] Even though the State specifically said it had no objections to the Frye hearing, the trial court summarily denied all these motions, agreeing with the State that defendant had agreed on October 21 to the admission of this evidence. At trial, immediately before the Genescreen and Cellmark personnel testified, defendant renewed his motions for continuance and appointment of expert. A lengthy colloquy followed during which the October 21 and November 4 discussions were reviewed and the defendant requested either to depose the DNA witnesses or conduct a  Frye -like hearing where the witnesses would be under oath in the courtroom. The trial court refused: As I understand the current case and the statutory law of Indiana, Frye hearings are not required. The fact is, they are not recommended. The trial court ultimately denied the motions, ruling that the defendant had requested the evidence and that the State had no advantage because it was relying on the same experts as the defendant. The trial court did order that the DNA witnesses be available to the defense for questioning during an approximately three hour lunch break. At trial, Dr. Lisa Forman from Cellmark testified that its analysis had been unable to link defendant to the swabbings taken from Stacy Forsee. Analyst Judy Floyd from Genescreen testified that although its test had been able to exclude 92.6% of all white males as the source of the specimen, defendant had not been excluded. However, she acknowledged that of any 13,000 white men, the specimen could have come from any 1,000 of them. As noted, defendant on October 21 and November 4 moved for appointment of an expert to assist him in analyzing the DNA test results. On November 4, the defendant also moved for a continuance to allow him more time to analyze the test results and filed a motion in limine to exclude the test results, at least until the trial court could conduct a Frye hearing on the admissibility of the test results. At trial, defendant renewed his motions for a continuance and appointment of expert and again raised the issue of holding a Frye hearing. While we believe the trial court should have conducted a Frye hearing, we ultimately conclude that any error in this regard does not require reversal. Starting with Hopkins v. State (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 1297, 1302, this court has regularly approved the admission of DNA identification evidence in criminal prosecutions. [13] But these cases do not stand for the proposition that any proffered DNA evidence is automatically admissible. [14] Rather, they reflect this court's conclusion that in each case, the trial court either properly applied the applicable rules of evidence in admitting the test results or did not commit error that was reversible. By summarily denying all defense motions without conducting any pre-trial inquiry into the admissibility of the DNA tests, the trial court here ran serious risks of violating important evidentiary principles. First, Hopkins involved the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) testing methodology. However, the DNA test at issue here employed the new methodology, polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The words DNA test results are not magic words which, once uttered, cause the doors of admissibility to open. Expert scientific testimony is admissible in Indiana only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable. Cornett v. State, (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 498, 503; Hopkins, 579 N.E.2d at 1303. Cf. Ind.Evidence Rule 702(b). There was no effort by the trial court here to satisfy itself in this regard as to the new PCR type of DNA testing. [15] Second, by summarily dismissing the defense motions we believe the trial court failed to give proper attention to its obligation to determine that the expert witnesses were properly qualified. Our decision in Hopkins best illustrates this point. There we left for the factfinder the duty of evaluating the weight of expert testimony and resolving [a]ny battle of qualified experts... or other conflict as to the reliability of evidence. Hopkins, 579 N.E.2d at 1303. But we also clearly said that before any such testimony is to be presented to the jury, the trial court must rule the witness qualified as a matter of law to give expert testimony regarding DNA analysis. Id. There was no such ruling here. Third, no evidence is admissible if the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. Hardin v. State (1993), Ind., 611 N.E.2d 123, 126 (quoting Warner v. State (1991), Ind., 579 N.E.2d 1307, 1310, and Hansford v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 1083). This rule is now embodied in Indiana Evidence Rule 403. [16] This court has clearly recognized that scientific evidence presents special risks of potential harm and prejudice to the parties involved. Cornett, 450 N.E.2d at 503. We agree with the recent pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court construing Federal Rule of Evidence 403: `Expert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it. Because of this risk, the judge in weighing possible prejudice against probative force under Rule 403 ... exercises more control over experts than over lay witnesses.' Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2798, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (quoting Weinstein, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence is Sound; It Should Not Be Amended, 138 F.R.D. 631, 632 (1991)). [17] There is no evidence in this record that the trial court engaged in any such weighing. Before expert scientific evidence may be admitted in Indiana, the trial court must be satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable, that the witness is qualified, and that the testimony's probative value is not substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice. By summarily denying defendant's motions without conducting any kind of hearing or making any kind of record on these issues, we have no basis for concluding that the trial court was satisfied in any of these respects. As to the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for appointment of an expert and for a continuance to evaluate the DNA test results, we believe the trial court's rulings were within its discretion for the reasons to be discussed in a moment. However, we think that the because the defense was forced by these rulings to begin trial within only a few days of receiving the DNA test results and to rely on Genescreen personnel as its own experts, the trial court should have set aside time to permit the defense an in-depth inquiry into the tests. A pre-trial hearing could have been used for this purpose as well and presents an additional reason why the trial court should have conducted a pre-trial hearing on the admissibility of the test results. We believe the trial court was within its discretion in denying the defendant's request for appointment of an expert to assist in analyzing the DNA tests. In a recent death penalty case we reviewed the standards for court-appointed experts for criminal defendants: In Indiana, a criminal defendant is not constitutionally entitled, at public expense, to any type or number of expert witnesses he desires to support his case. Kennedy v. State (1991), Ind., 578 N.E.2d 633, 640, cert. denied 503 U.S. 921, 112 S.Ct. 1299, 117 L.Ed.2d 521 [1992]. A defendant who requests funds for an expert witness has the burden of demonstrating the need for that expert. Id. The appointment of experts is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and only an abuse of that discretion will result in a reversal, but a trial court must provide a defendant access to experts where it is clear that prejudice will otherwise result. Id. Issues which the trial court should consider in determining whether a defendant is entitled to funds for an expert include (1) whether defense counsel already possesses the skills to cross-examine the expert adequately or could prepare to do so by studying published writings, Id.; (2) whether the purpose of the expert is exploratory only, Hough v. State (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 511, 516; and (3) whether the nature of the expert testimony involves precise physical measurements and chemical testing, the results of which were not subject to dispute. Schultz v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 531, 533-34. In cases where a defendant faces the death penalty, we also have held that the failure to allow the defendant appropriate resources to retain an expert who would give an opinion concerning the statutory mitigator, may require reversal of the death penalty. Castor v. State (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 1281, 1288 [, reh'g denied ]. James v. State (1993), Ind., 613 N.E.2d 15, 21. We believe that in this case the nature of the expert testimony involved precise physical measurements and chemical testing, the results of which were not subject to dispute, and so the rule of Schultz v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 531 applies. Where the testimony of the experts involved precise, physical measurements and chemical testing, and there is no showing that these experts were less than precise or able in their testing and observations, that the truth or accuracy of their testimony is questionable by some new evidence, or that there is evidence available or likely from other experts which would indicate they were wrong, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for appointment of an expert. Schultz, 497 N.E.2d at 534. Here there was every reason to believe that the Genescreen personnel were neutral. [18] Defendant made no attempt to question their precision, ability, truth or accuracy, nor did he make any showing which could reasonably lead to an indication that they were wrong. In applying this holding in future cases, however, it will be incumbent upon trial courts to assure that such experts are truly neutral  that the experts are aware that they are not advocates for either side and that neither side has any material advantage as to pre-trial access to them or to test results or materials. Defendant relies on Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), and Smith v. McCormick, 914 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1990). In Ake, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction because the appointment of an expert in psychiatry was denied to an indigent defendant relying on an insanity defense. In Smith, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the appointment of a neutral psychiatrist and held that the defendant should have had independent psychiatric assistance. We agree with the State that defendant's situation here is different from that in Ake and Smith. Psychiatry is an extremely uncertain field dealing with the mysteries of the human mind where expert opinions can be expected to and do differ widely. In contrast, the neutral Genescreen experts here were testifying to the results of a test involving precise, physical measurements and chemical testing, James, 613 N.E.2d at 21 (citing Schultz, 497 N.E.2d at 533-34). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appointment of defendant's requested expert. As to the denial of the motions for continuance, we make several observations. The granting or denial of a continuance is primarily a matter for the trial court, and the denial of one will be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. [19] Woods v. State (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 772, 788, reh'g granted on other grounds (1990), Ind., 557 N.E.2d 1325, cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S.Ct. 2911, 115 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1991). The record must reveal that the defendant was prejudiced by the failure to grant the continuance in order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Evans v. State (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 942, 948. Here, the reason the continuance was requested was to permit the requested defense expert to review the results of the Genescreen test. Because it was within the trial court's discretion to deny appointment of the underlying expert, we perceive no abuse in the court's denial of the continuance that was sought to permit that expert time to work. Likewise, we find no reversible error in the trial court's admission of the DNA test results. First, the record suggests that defense counsel consented to the admission of the test results at the October 21, 1991, pre-trial conference. In any event, defendant did not renew his objection to the admission of the test results embodied in his motion in limine. [20] The issue was therefore waived for appeal. Conner v. State (1991), Ind., 580 N.E.2d 214, 219, cert. denied, 503 U.S. 946, 112 S.Ct. 1501, 117 L.Ed.2d 640 (1992); Collins v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1286, 1289-90. Second, the DNA test results were of primary importance to only one of the charges  the knowing murder of Stacy Forsee  and defendant was acquitted of this crime. In fact, from our reading of the record, it would appear that the jury may very well have acquitted on this charge based in part on defense counsel's effective cross-examination of the Cellmark and Genescreen technician. [21] As noted in the discussion of Issue No. 1, supra, there existed substantial independent evidence apart from the DNA test results to support the convictions for Arson and the Murders of the children. Exclusion of the DNA test results would not have affected the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those convictions.