Court Opinion

ID: 9852658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:34:21.519003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:31.743022
License: Public Domain

Judge GREENE
dissenting.
I agree with the majority, and for the reasons given, that it was error for the trial court to admit Mr. Whitlock’s testimony that the mathematical odds of finding two people whose hairs have the same microscopic characteristics are one in 1000.
*677I do, however, contrary to the majority, believe that this error requires a new trial. The one in 1000 statistical testimony was significant to the State’s case and there is a “reasonable possibility that . . . [this evidence] contributed to the conviction.” State v. Milby, 302 N.C. 137, 142, 237 S.E.2d 716, 720 (1981). The two hairs found at the scene are the only physical evidence linking defendant to the crime. Althoúgh Mr. Whitlock also testified that the hair found at the scene “likely . . . originated” from the defendant, this testimony is far less persuasive than the one in 1000 testimony. Furthermore, the one in 1000 testimony was emphasized by the district attorney in her closing argument to the jury:
And that leads us to the hair. Now, doesn’t it just seem a little too coincidental to you that the one person that we have made all these stories up about . . . happens to be the same hair type as the hairs that are found at the scene? Now, that’s awful coincidental if you ask me, because as Mr. Whitlock testified, it would be about a one in a thousand chance of two people at random in the population having the same hair characteristics.
In addition to the weakness of the State’s evidence, there is physical evidence that someone other than the defendant could have been the assailant. There was a bloody palm print found at the scene which was positively identified as not belonging to the defendant or to any family member or police and rescue personnel. Accordingly, there exists a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached had the erroneous evidence not been before the jury. State v. Gardner, 316 N.C. 605, 613, 342 S.E.2d 872, 877 (1986). I would, therefore, grant the defendant a new trial.