Opinion ID: 2789680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DNA Results

Text: [¶7] In Defendant’s Updated Pre-Trial Disclosures of Witnesses and Exhibits, Mr. Galbreath designated a DNA Laboratory Examination Report, dated December 3, 2013, as an exhibit. Trial counsel, however, did not designate a witness who could provide the foundation required to enter the exhibit into evidence, which resulted in a motion in limine from the prosecution seeking to preclude Mr. Galbreath from entering the DNA results into evidence. The district court held a hearing on the motion immediately 2 preceding trial, but the court did not rule on the issue at that time. During trial, the district court held an additional meeting with counsel in chambers concerning the DNA evidence. The district court pointed out that introduction of that evidence (even if it could have been introduced without a witness) would open the door for the prosecutor to discuss destruction of evidence by Mr. Galbreath’s father, thus further undermining the credibility of witnesses for the defense. Mr. Galbreath’s attorney decided not to introduce the report into evidence. [¶8] Regardless of whether Mr. Galbreath’s trial counsel acted deficiently in failing to notice an appropriate witness to testify regarding the results of the DNA test, we find that Mr. Galbreath suffered no prejudice. The DNA test compared a cutout from Mr. Galbreath’s mattress with two oral swabs taken from Mr. Galbreath. The test resulted in a finding that “The partial DNA profile obtained from the cutout . . . is not consistent with Scott Galbreath[.]” We fail to see how this evidence would have made any difference in the outcome of the trial. On appeal, Mr. Galbreath contends, “Those results would have been beneficial to Mr. Galbreath’s case, as the results indicate no link between Mr. Galbreath and S.V.” Contrary to Mr. Galbreath’s contention, however, the DNA results do not establish that there was no sexual link between Mr. Galbreath and S.V. To derive that conclusion from the DNA report, the test would necessarily require a sample from S.V., which was conspicuously absent from these results. We cannot perceive of any way in which the introduction of this evidence to the jury would have changed the outcome of the trial. Mr. Galbreath has failed to establish that he was prejudiced as a result of trial counsel’s actions in this matter, thus defeating his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Eaton, 2008 WY 97, ¶ 132, 192 P.3d at 92 (failure to prove either deficient performance or prejudice is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).