Because the testimony concerning the presence of male DNA on the external vaginal swabs was admissible, defense counsel was not deficient at trial for failing to object to it. See Rodriguez v. State , 158 N.E.3d 802 (Ind. App. 2020). See, also, In re Brandon P. , 2013 IL App (4th) 111022, 992 N.E.2d 651, 372 Ill. Dec. 809 (2013).
[¶13] In any event, it is well settled that "the improper admission of evidence is harmless error 'if there is substantial independent evidence of guilt and we are satisfied that there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.'" Rodriguez v. State, 158 N.E.3d 802, 807 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (quoting Laird v. State, 103 N.E.3d 1171, 1178 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018), trans. denied). Here, even if the trial court erred in admitting the challenged evidence, the error was harmless given the substantial independent evidence supporting Gomez's convictions.
[¶27] We have subsequently recognized that not every case of inconclusive DNA results presents the same concerns as those present in Deloney. In Rodriquez v. State, 158 N.E.3d 802 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020), Rodriquez had been accused of licking a child's vagina; internal and external swabs were taken for DNA analysis. See id. at 804.