Opinion ID: 2575903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliability of Hair Comparison Evidence

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to introduce evidence that a hair found on Lees's left leg and another hair found on her vulva were consistent with his pubic hair. He maintains that the rulings violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law and that the evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative (Evid.Code, ї 352) because the hair comparison evidence was completely unreliable. Defendant did not object on due process grounds below; instead, he interposed objections on the basis of Evidence Code section 352 and the evidence's scientific reliability under the Kelly-Frye test ( People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 130 Cal. Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. United States (D.C.Cir.1923) 293 F. 1013 [34 A.L.R. 145]). (See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 594-595, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 882 P.2d 321 [describing the Kelly-Frye test].) Defendant argues on appeal primarily . . . that the trial court should have excluded the evidence for the reason asserted at trialБ─■that it was more prejudicial than probative. He also argues that this asserted error violated his right to due process. He may make that argument. ( People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 431, 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 644, 122 P.3d 765.) But on the merits, we conclude that no constitutional error occurred. [6] As defendant concedes, this court has long approved of admitting forensic hair comparison evidence. Hair comparison evidence that identifies a suspect or victim as a possible donor has been routinely admitted in California for many years. . . . ( People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 239, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.) Defendant asserts that developments in other jurisdictions call into question the introduction of hair comparison evidence against a criminal defendant to prove his guilt, citing at length a Canadian provincial commission report (Kaufman, Ministry of Ontario Atty. Gen., Rep. of the Kaufman Com. on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (1999) http://www.attorney general.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/(as of Apr. 10, 2006)), a federal district court decision ( Williamson v. Reynolds (E.D.Okla.1995) 904 F.Supp. 1529), a book (Scheck et al., Actual Innocence (2000)), and law review articles (Smith and Goodman, Forensic Hair Comparison Analysis etc. (1996) 27 Colum. Hum. Rts. L.Rev. 227; Imwinkelried, Forensic Hair Analysis etc. (1982) 39 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 41). This authority does not convince us to retreat from our observation in Pride, supra, at page 239, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643, that California courts have long assumed that hair comparison evidence of the sort admitted here has some logical bearing on defendant's commission of the charged crimes. [Citations.] The criminalist acknowledged in her testimony that the hair comparison evidence was of limited significance. The trial court did not err in admitting it. Accordingly, there was no due process violation.