Opinion ID: 1036031
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of motion to suppress replicate DNA

Text: test results ¶18 The Mesa Police Sex Crimes Division took vaginal, anal, and breast swabs from Yolanda’s body. An analyst detected sperm cells on the anal swab but could not establish a DNA profile. DNA taken from the breast swab, however, matched Benson’s DNA profile. When the crime lab retested the anal swab several months later using newer technology, the analyst was able to match the profile taken from the swab to Benson’s profile. ¶19 Benson moved to preclude evidence of the second test as inconsistent with the first test. He presented expert testimony that no scientifically validated explanation justified the different results and argued that the analysts’ explanations were inadmissible under the Frye/Logerquist standard. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923); see also Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470, 489 ¶ 56, 1 P.3d 113, 132 (2000) (retaining the Frye rule in Arizona). The court denied Benson’s 5 STATE v. TRENT CHRISTOPHER BENSON Opinion of the Court motion without performing a Frye/Logerquist analysis. We review the court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Snelling, 225 Ariz. 182, 187 ¶ 18, 236 P.3d 409, 414 (2010). ¶20 Arizona courts used the Frye/Logerquist standard to determine the admissibility of expert opinions that relied on “the application of novel scientific principles, formulae, or procedures developed by others.” Logerquist, 196 Ariz. at 490 ¶ 62, 1 P.3d at 133.3 The State’s analysts, however, did not rely on “novel scientific theories or processes” in conducting the second analysis for the anal swabs. Their conclusions, therefore, were not subject to Frye but were governed instead by Rules 403, 702, and 703. Id. at 477-78 ¶ 23, 1 P.3d at 120-21. Whether the analysts offered viable explanations for the different results obtained in each test was properly for the jury to decide. Id. at 488 ¶ 52, 1 P.3d at 131.