¶ 19. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.
¶19. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So. 2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.
¶ 37. “The standard of review for admission of evidence is abuse of discretion.” Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 860 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Debrow v. State, 972 So.2d 550, 552 (¶ 6) (Miss.2007) ). “Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo.” Jenkins v. State, 102 So.3d 1063, 1065 (¶ 7) (Miss.2012) (citing Smith v. State, 25 So.3d 264, 269 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) ).
Id. at 1079–80 (quoting McGowen, 859 So.2d at 340).The Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that, in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008), the Mississippi Court of Appeals had correctly applied the principles from McGowen. In Brown the testifying analyst was the laboratory manager rather than the primary analyst who had performed the tests at issue.
¶ 16. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.
¶16. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the principles from McGowen in Brown v. State, 999 So. 2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). In that case, much like today's case, the analyst called to testify was the laboratory manager, rather than the primary analyst who had performed the DNA tests at issue.
As such, in the interest of privacy, the court will not to refer to her by name. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences. Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss. App. 2008), reh'g. denied, November 18, 2008, cert. denied, January 29, 2009 (Cause No. 2006-KA-315-COA). Brown then filed an "Application for Leave to File Motion for Post-Conviction Relief" and accompanying "Motion for Post-Conviction Relief and Supporting Authorities," raising the following grounds for relief (as stated by Brown through counsel):
Whether the verdict finding King Young Brown, Jr. guilty of forcible rape is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Brown's convictions and sentences. Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853 (Miss. App. 2008), reh'g. denied, November 18, 2008, cert. denied, January 29, 2009 (Cause No. 2006-KA-315-COA). The victim was a minor and suffered a sexual assault prior to her murder.
¶37. In addition, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[w]hen the testifying witness is a court-accepted expert in the relevant field who participated in the analysis in some capacity, such as by performing procedural checks, then the testifying witness's testimony does not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights." Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 860 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting McGowen v. State, 859 So.2d 320, 339 (¶68) (Miss. 2003))
Id. at 340. See also Brown v. State, 999 So.2d 853, 861 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (The analyst who actually performed the DNA test did not testify; the testifying witness was the laboratory manager who “actively participated in the analysis” and checked the work done by the other analysts. The Court of Appeals held that the laboratory manager was “sufficiently involved with the analysis and overall process,” and the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated.