Opinion ID: 883138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in allowing the introduction of the DNA analysis evidence after it had excluded the statistical evidence relating to the DNA testing?

Text: Before trial, Moore moved to have all DNA evidence excluded. After an extensive pretrial hearing concerning the admissibility of the DNA analysis evidence, the District Court denied Moore's motion, and allowed the State to present evidence concerning the DNA analysis conducted on both the muscle tissue and the brain tissue. Moore then moved to exclude testimony concerning the statistical calculations which would have presented a probability that any alleged match between the tissue samples and the Brisbin children is not coincidental. The District Court granted the motion and refused to allow testimony concerning the statistics, but allowed the experts to testify that the RFLP and PCR test results were consistent with Brisbin. Moore alleges on appeal that the District Court erred in not excluding DNA evidence in its entirety. Moore claims that because no valid statistics were presented, the DNA evidence failed to meet requirements of Rule 702, M.R.Evid., as it failed to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Relying on the testimony of defense expert Dr. Shapiro, Moore states that the only way the jury has to evaluate the DNA evidence is through the statistical data which supports it. Without the statistics, the evidence is meaningless and, therefore, is not helpful to the trier of fact. Moore concludes by arguing that there is no difference between saying the evidence is consistent with Brisbin and that there is a match with Brisbin. Admissibility of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Stewart (1992), 253 Mont. 475, 479, 833 P.2d 1085, 1087. This Court's review of a district court's evidentiary rulings is whether the district court abused its discretion. State v. Gollehon (1993), 262 Mont. 293, 301, 864 P.2d 1257, 1263. We conclude that because the District Court excluded testimony concerning the statistical evidence upon Moore's own motion, he cannot now complain that the court erred in granting his motion. The District Court concluded that the statistical probabilities invad[es] the province of the jury, ... [because] when you get numbers high enough, in essence you're directing a verdict, and that gets way beyond reasonable doubt. Because the ruling made upon Moore's motion benefitted the defense, Moore cannot now complain. In addressing this same issue, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant was barred from raising the issue on appeal when he had specifically requested that the district court exclude the statistical evidence. The court noted: After the district court decided to admit the DNA match evidence, the court invited counsel to comment on the propriety of admitting statistical evidence of the likelihood of a match. In response to this invitation, Martinez' counsel suggested that the court exclude the probability evidence ... Having specifically requested that the district court exclude the statistical evidence, Martinez may not now complain about its exclusion. United States v. Martinez, (8th Cir.1993), 3 F.3d 1191, 1199, cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 734, 126 L.Ed.2d. 697. We conclude that, like the defendant in Martinez, Moore is barred from complaining that the statistical evidence was excluded because he sought its exclusion. Our determination does not address whether we will allow the admission of DNA analysis results in a future case without the accompanying statistical analysis. We recognize that there is presently a diversity of opinion among the jurisdictions that have addressed this issue. A summary of the different approaches is found in People v. Adams (Mich. App. 1992), 489 N.W.2d 192, 198, where the Michigan Court of Appeals noted: Some courts of other jurisdictions have ruled that DNA identification evidence is admissible at trial, but have then refused to allow into evidence the statistical analysis of the testing because the databases were shown to have not been in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Curnin, 409 Mass. at pp. 225-227, 565 N.E.2d 440; Caldwell [v. State], 260 Ga. [278] at pp. 289-290, 393 S.E. 2d 436 [1990]; State v. Pennell, 584 A.2d 513, 517-520 (Del.Super. 1989). However, other courts have recognized that conservative or reduced calculations such as those used by Cellmark may correct any Hardy-Weinberg deviation problems. Axell, 235 Cal. App.3d at p. 868, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 411 [1991]; Caldwell, 260 Ga. at p. 289, 393 S.E.2d 436; [People v.] Castro, 144 Misc.2d [956] at p. 969, 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 [1989]. The statistical analysis of DNA testing is inadmissible in some jurisdictions because of its prejudicial effect. [ State v.] Schwartz [447 N.W.2d 422] at pp. 428-429 [Minn. 1989]; Pennell at pp. 519-520. On the other hand, some courts have held that such evidence is a matter of weight for the jury. Axell, 235 Cal. App.3d at p. 868, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 411; Hopkins [v. State] [Ind. 1991] [579 N.E.2d 1297] at p. 1303; United States v. Yee, 134 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Ohio 1991). Whether, and if so, to what extent we will allow DNA evidence without the accompanying statistical evidence in other criminal trials will be decided in a future case. Our decision in this case is based solely on the fact that Moore moved to exclude the evidence, and cannot now argue that its exclusion was error. Because Moore moved to exclude the statistical analysis evidence at trial, and in light of the varied approaches among the jurisdictions which have addressed this issue, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the DNA analysis evidence without the statistical evidence in this case.