Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Defendant's Arrest and the Ensuing Searches

Text: Detective Lackie testified that after he completed his observations of the brown Toyota and the surrounding yard area, he learned from another investigator that one of defendant's fingerprints on file appeared to match a fingerprint located on a bottle found in the plastic sack at the crime scene. Lackie thereafter obtained a search warrant, returning to the Hart residence on May 8, 1986, to execute the warrant. By the time Lackie arrived at the residence, law enforcement officers already had taken defendant into custody. Detective Moker testified that he placed defendant under arrest on May 8, 1986. Moker recalled that at the time of defendant's arrest, defendant's hair was fluffy or wavy or dry looking ... [with] the part in the middle.... Detective Lackie testified that at the time of the arrest, defendant wore soiled pants and had extremely soiled hands. Detective Lackie further testified that law enforcement Officers seized the brown Toyota (and another vehicle) in order to conduct a subsequent search. In the mobilehome, officers found a jar of Vaseline in the master bedroom, another jar of petroleum jelly in the bathroom, and Marlboro 100 cigarettes. Outside the residence (crumpled up against the fence at the edge of the property), Lackie found two more pieces of a bumper sticker that appeared to have been torn from the SKIER bumper sticker on the brown Toyota. Lackie found a pair of matched tennis shoes, partially burnt, in a 55-gallon drum that appeared to have served as an incinerator. The tread design on the shoes appeared to match certain shoe impressions found at the crime scene. Lackie described the shoes at the time they were discovered in the drum as having been in pretty good condition.... There were no obvious gouges, tears, marks, signs of destruction that I could see other than what was created by the burns  burning. Lackie also observed Circle-K plastic sacks among trash located at the side of the mobilehome. Criminalist James Hall testified that on the day of defendant's arrest, he obtained various evidence exemplars from defendant's body, including those taken from defendant's pubic hair. Hall compared defendant's pubic hair with the specimen recovered from Diane's thigh, concluding that the hairs were microscopically similar and, therefore, the evidence hair [found on Diane] could have come from Mr. Hart. Hall also compared the loose pubic hair with an exemplar taken from Diane's body, noted microscopic differences, and opined that the loose hair had not come from her. Hall testified that he examined Amy's slip and panties, identifying on the panties human bloodstains of an indeterminable ABO blood type. Hall identified ABO type B blood on Amy's blouse (Diane had ABO type B blood, Amy had type O, and defendant had type A). Hall identified a seminal fluid stain on Amy's slip; on cross-examination, he testified that ABO typing and enzyme typing of the stain were inconclusive, and he was uncertain as to the date the stain was made. On redirect examination, Hall stated that defendant is a nonsecretor, which means that an examination of defendant's bodily fluids would not disclose his blood type. Hall acknowledged that the inconclusive nature of the tests conducted on the seminal stain could be due to the strength of the stain, the passage of time, or the nonsecretor status of the donor. Hall identified saliva on the Marlboro 100 cigarette butts collected at the crime scene, but tests as to the blood type of the donor did not yield a blood type, a result Hall testified he would expect if the donor were a nonsecretor. Hall testified that on May 10, 1986, he examined defendant's vehicle, recovering orange cloth fibers from the dashboard area of the car's interior.