Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion to exclude DNA evidence.

Text: ¶ 136. In Polk v. State, this Court first sanctioned the use of evidence of a DNA match between crime scene evidence and the DNA of a criminal defendant. Polk v. State, 612 So.2d 381 (Miss.1992). This use was subsequently expanded in Hull, 687 So.2d at 728 and most recently affirmed in Crawford v. State, 716 So.2d 1028 (Miss.1998). All of these cases dealt with a particular type of DNA test known as Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP). The DNA test performed in the instant case was polymerase chain reaction (PCR). [10] The admissibility of PCR type DNA evidence is a novel issue before this Court. Thus, a preliminary question is whether PCR type DNA testing should be admissible in Mississippi. [11] ¶ 137. In Polk, this Court adopted the three-pronged test of Ex parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242, 250 (Ala.1991) for determining whether DNA evidence should be admissible. Polk, 612 So.2d at 390. This test asks: I. Is there a theory, generally accepted in the scientific community, that supports the conclusion that DNA forensic testing can produce reliable results? II. Are there current techniques that are capable of producing reliable results in DNA identification and that are generally accepted in the scientific community? III. In this particular case, did the testing laboratory perform generally accepted scientific techniques without error in the performance or interpretation of the tests? Id. ¶ 138. The Polk court was also particular to include in the appendix of the opinion a series of guidelines for the admission of DNA evidence, most of which are also relevant for a determination of PCR DNA admissibility. Applying Polk to PCR type DNA testing as revealed in the hearing in the trial court below, it is clear that the trial court was correct in admitting the evidence.