Morris v. State, A93A2131
| Decision Date | 11 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. A93A2131,A93A2131 |
| Citation | 212 Ga.App. 42,441 S.E.2d 273 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Roderick H. Martin, Marietta, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, Dist. Atty., Charles M. Norman, Debra H. Bernes, Nancy I. Jordan, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Roosevelt Morris was indicted by a Cobb County grand jury on charges of rape, OCGA § 16-6-1, burglary, OCGA § 16-7-1, and aggravated assault, OCGA § 16-5-21. He was convicted on all three counts. His motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. Both enumerations of error concern the introduction of DNA evidence. See generally Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990).
1. Morris first enumerates as error the alleged failure of the trial court to address the threshold issue of admissibility of DNA test results. Morris acknowledged at trial that DNA testing "is based on sound principles" and that he had "no quarrel" with the qualifications of the State's expert. While Morris cross-examined the State's expert extensively and repeatedly regarding the State Crime Lab's DNA testing procedures, he did not present any expert testimony refuting or challenging the methodology of the tests. His sole objection at trial with respect to the methodology of the State's DNA testing was to the failure of the GBI lab to perform a "band shift test." Relying on language in Caldwell, supra at 288, 393 S.E.2d 436, Morris contends that a "band shift test" must be performed on every DNA analysis. This contention is without merit.
As more fully discussed in Caldwell, DNA testing relies upon the variation in genetic cell codes among individuals. The testing process breaks the genetic components of human cells into small units or fragments, which are then arranged in an orderly fashion on a nylon membrane. Radioactive "probes" are used to mark fragments of DNA known to be highly variable or "polymorphic," and the membrane is exposed on X-ray film. This produces an image known as an "autoradiograph," showing "bands" or darker stripes created by the radioactively marked DNA. When two autoradiographs created from separate samples are compared, bands of similar length and position on the autoradiographs (a "match") indicate that the samples have a common source. See Caldwell at 279-285, 393 S.E.2d 436.
As noted both in Caldwell and by the State's expert, "band shift" is a phenomenon which may occur during DNA testing. While the causes of "band shift" are imperfectly understood, when it occurs it produces non-alignment on the autoradiographs of bands that are actually similar. A "match" may nevertheless be declared if the bands are in essentially the same place within a permissible degree of error. Caldwell at 286, 393 S.E.2d 436.
In Caldwell, non-alignment of several bands was attributed to band shift, and accordingly a test was performed to confirm the presence of band shift and declare a match. Caldwell at 287-288, 393 S.E.2d 436. Here, in contrast, the State's expert testified that no band shift occurred on any of the five probes used in the tests performed on the DNA samples taken from Morris and the victim. Since the anomaly noted in Caldwell did not exist in this case, performing a test to confirm the presence of nonexistent band shift obviously would have been futile. Moreover, the visual matches obtained in this case were confirmed by use of a computer program which analyzed the autoradiograph bands to an error factor of plus or minus four percent. Morris did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. State, S98P1962.
...See id. 14. Id. 15. 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). 16. See Caldwell, 260 Ga. at 290(1)(f), 393 S.E.2d 436; Morris v. State, 212 Ga.App. 42, 42-43(1), 441 S.E.2d 273 (1994). 17. Caldwell, 260 Ga. at 286-287(1)(b), 393 S.E.2d 436; Johnson v. State, 265 Ga. 668, 669(2), 461 S.E.2d 209 18.......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Tippins
...to any portion of the witness's testimony, Ford has failed to preserve this enumeration of error for appeal. Morris v. State, 212 Ga.App. 42, 44(2), 441 S.E.2d 273 (1994). Ford also failed to move to strike King's testimony after cross-examination. That method of preserving an issue for app......
-
Miller v. the State.
...voir dire regarding the deputy's qualifications, Miller failed to preserve his enumeration of error. See Morris v. State, 212 Ga.App. 42, 43–44(2), 441 S.E.2d 273 (1994). See also In the Interest of M.D., 244 Ga.App. 156, 157(1), 534 S.E.2d 889 (2000); Moss v. State, 216 Ga.App. 711, 712–71......
-
Watts v. State, A00A1084.
...grounds). 10. (Punctuation omitted.) Harris v. State, 190 Ga.App. 343, 348(4)(b), 378 S.E.2d 912 (1989). 11. See Morris v. State, 212 Ga.App. 42, 43-44(2), 441 S.E.2d 273 (1994) (defendant failed to renew objection to expert's qualifications after further foundation laid); Ford Motor Co. v.......