Opinion
2022 KW 1066
09-29-2022
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. B.J. MCELVEEN
State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 09-18-0487.
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY AND WOLFE, JJ.
STAY LIFTED; WRIT GRANTED. The trial court's ruling limiting testimony from the State's DNA expert and excluding the lab reports is reversed. No error under the Confrontation Clause occurs when a DNA expert testifies that in his or her opinion the DNA profile developed from a sample taken from defendant matches the DNA profile developed by other, non-testifying technicians from biological samples taken from the evidence. State v. Bolden, 2011-2435 (La. 10/26/12), 108 So.3d 1159, 116162 (per curiam), cf. State v. Oliphant, 2013-273 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 11/20/13), 127 So.3d 91 (the testimony of an alternate crime lab employee regarding results of DNA analysis, rather than employee who actually performed the analysis, did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights. The crime lab employee who actually performed the analysis was on maternity leave and the testifying employee was recognized as an expert in DNA analysis and admittedly familiar with the protocols and procedures required of the analysis). Further, the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory scientific analysis reports are admissible. Even if forensic DNA reports are admitted in evidence without in-court testimony of the scientist/analyst who either signed the certification or performed or observed the test reported in the certification, generally, there is no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation because the reports are not testimonial. State v. Grimes, 2011-0984 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2/20/13), 109 So.3d 1007, writ denied, 2013-0625 (La. 10/11/13), 123 So.3d 1216 (citing Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012)).
VGW
JMG
EW