Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Request a Hearing Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 402 Regarding the Prosecution's Electrophoresis Evidence

Text: James Hall, the prosecution's criminalist, testified that a stain found on Amy's slip tested positive for both blood and seminal fluid, although neither substance could be typed using electrophoresis. Thus, the testimony did not establish whether it was defendant who deposited the stain. Notwithstanding the inconclusive nature of Hall's testimony, defendant contends that his trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to request a hearing pursuant to Evidence Code section 402, or to seek a Kelly-Frye hearing, to challenge the electrophoresis evidence. (See People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30, 130 Cal.Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013, 1014.) Defendant's contention is unavailing, because the record on appeal fails to disclose that trial counsel lacked a tactical basis for declining to challenge the electrophoresis evidence, and counsel's decision was not one for which there could be no satisfactory explanation. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal. Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; People v. Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 926, 936, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212; People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d 572, 581, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144.) Although the criminalist testified that the contributor of the stain might have been a nonsecretor (as was defendant), the criminalist also testified that the inability to type the stain could have been due to the insufficient strength of the stain, or due to degradation attributable to the passage of time. Thus, as noted, the evidence did not identify defendant as the contributor. Trial counsel therefore reasonably may have concluded that the evidence was not particularly prejudicial, and on that basis reasonably could have made a tactical decision not to challenge the admissibility of this evidence, or the reliability of the electrophoresis testing. During cross-examination, trial counsel exploited the weakness of this evidence, asking questions that emphasized its inconclusive nature. Defendant's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel's failure to request a Kelly-Frye hearing similarly is unpersuasive. Again, the record before us fails to disclose that trial counsel lacked a tactical basis for declining to request such a hearing, nor was counsel's decision to refrain from doing so one for which there could be no satisfactory explanation. (See People v. Mendoza Tello, supra, 15 Cal.4th 264, 266, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 437, 933 P.2d 1134; People v. Wilson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 926, 936, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212; People v. Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d 572, 581, 189 Cal.Rptr. 855, 659 P.2d 1144.) At the time of defendant's trial, electrophoretic typing of dried bloodstains had gained general acceptance in the scientific community. ( People v. Reilly (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1127, 1148-1153, 242 Cal.Rptr. 496.) Trial counsel was under no obligation to interpose a meritless challenge to a generally accepted scientific technique. (See In re Lower (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 144, 149, fn. 3, 161 Cal.Rptr. 24[[T]here is no obligation on the part of any attorney to embark on a program of fruitless, time-consuming, nonproductive motions which ... may make a dandy record but be of little or no value to his client.].) We therefore reject defendant's contention that trial counsel performed deficiently regarding this issue, and find no basis for his related contention that counsel's performance deprived defendant of his constitutional rights.