Opinion ID: 1058311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Reliability of DNA Testing

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a pretrial hearing to determine the reliability of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) DNA testing used in this case, pursuant to McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn.1997). In McDaniel , the Supreme Court clarified the standards for the admission of scientific evidence under Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. Subsequently, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 24-7-117, mitochondrial DNA evidence met the general standards for admission of scientific or technical evidence and could be allowed as a method of proving identification without expert testimony as to its reliability. State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 756-60 (Tenn.2000). The trial court herein relied on Scott and ruled that a pretrial hearing to determine the reliability of the DNA testing was not necessary. Appellant argues that, although Scott held that a McDaniel hearing did not have to be conducted as to mitochondrial DNA testing, this case involves PCR DNA testing rather than mitochondrial DNA testing. Appellant further contends that, [b]ecause the scientific reliability of the specific type of testing used in this case has never been established, the trial court erred in failing to order a Daniel [sic] hearing. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held the PCR method of DNA analysis an inherently trustworthy and reliable method of identification. State v. Begley, 956 S.W.2d 471, 477 (Tenn.1997). In Begley , the court held: [h]ereafter, the PCR method of DNA analysis shall be admissible into evidence without antecedent expert testimony as to its trustworthiness and reliability, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-7-117(b)(1). As provided by that statute, parties are nevertheless allowed to offer proof that DNA analysis is not trustworthy and reliable. Tenn.Code Ann. § 24-7-117(b)(2). For example, a party can challenge the reliability of a particular test in any given case by a showing of sloppy handling of samples, failure to train the personnel performing the testing, failure to follow protocol, and the like. Such a challenge, however, will go to the weight, not the admissibility, of DNA evidence. Id. at 478 (footnote omitted). Herein, PCR DNA testing was utilized by the TBI and LabCorp expert witnesses. In accordance with Begley , we conclude that the PCR DNA evidence was admissible without antecedent expert witness testimony as to its trustworthiness and reliability. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.