Patterson v. State

Decision Date18 December 2000
Docket NumberNo. 46A03-0003-CR-109.,46A03-0003-CR-109.
Citation742 N.E.2d 4
PartiesSamuel PATTERSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Donald W. Pagos, Michigan City, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.

Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Rosemary L. Borek, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

DARDEN, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Samuel Patterson ("Patterson") appeals his convictions by jury for rape and burglary as Class B felonies.

We affirm.1

ISSUES

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Patterson's motion to suppress.

2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony about match probabilities derived from deoxyribonucleic acid ("DNA") tests.

3. Whether the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to take certain exhibits into the jury room during deliberations.

4. Whether the jury conducted an improper experiment during deliberations.

FACTS

In the early morning hours of December 6, 1997, eighty-two year old Julia Maciejewski ("Maciejewski") called the police after being awakened by the sound of breaking glass. When police arrived at her home in Michigan City, they found Patterson at the rear of the house. After a short chase, he was arrested and charged with attempted burglary as a class B felony. During the investigation, blood was discovered on the curtains around the broken window. Police obtained a search warrant for a blood sample to be taken from Patterson for DNA analysis. On December 25, 1997, Patterson's blood sample was submitted to the Indiana State Police Laboratory, North Division. The results of the DNA analysis established that the blood on the curtains inside Maciejewski's home was consistent with Patterson's DNA. Judgment of conviction for attempted burglary as a class B felony was entered on October 27, 1999 and Patterson appealed to this court. On June 14, 2000, this court reversed his conviction for reasons unrelated to the DNA analysis, and remanded with instructions to enter conviction for residential entry. Patterson v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

The events giving rise to the instant case also occurred in Michigan City earlier in 1997. On October 25, 1997, seventy-nine year old Francis Kirkland ("Kirkland") fell asleep while watching television in her living room. She was awakened by the sound of breaking glass. When Kirkland got up to investigate, she was grabbed from behind and forced to the floor. Her robe was thrown over her head, and her pajama bottoms and undergarments were forcibly removed. Kirkland was then subjected to vaginal and anal intercourse. Her assailant then tied Kirkland's arms together with her pajama bottoms, stole approximately $500 from her bedroom, and exited through the front door.

Kirkland untied herself and called police. When investigators arrived, they discovered bloodstains on the kitchen counter and body fluids on the carpet and Kirkland's clothing. Photographs and a plaster cast were also taken of footprints discovered inside and around the outside of the home. Cotton swabs of the bloodstains and samples from the carpet and clothing were submitted to the Indiana State Police Laboratory, North Division, on November 18, 1997. Using the blood sample that had been obtained from the Maciejewski burglary, new DNA tests were performed. The results showed that the DNA profiles of blood and body fluids found at the Kirkland home were consistent with the DNA in Patterson's blood sample.

On August 16, 1998, the blood and body fluid samples from the Kirkland home were submitted to Cellmark Diagnostics ("Cellmark") in Germantown, Maryland for additional review. Their DNA analysis confirmed the State Police results. On October 21, 1998, Patterson was charged with one count each of rape, criminal deviate conduct, and burglary as class B felonies, and one count of robbery as a class C felony. A jury trial was held from October 25-27, 1998. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was allowed to take the evidence into the jury room while they deliberated. Subsequently, the jury convicted Patterson on rape and burglary as class B felonies and judgment was entered on November 23, 1999.

On December 17, 1999, Patterson filed a Motion to Correct Error alleging improper jury experimentation during deliberation. Attached was a juror's signed affidavit. Patterson's motion was denied on January 27, 2000.

DECISION
1. Motion to Suppress

At trial, the State sought to admit Patterson's blood sample from the Maciejewski burglary into evidence. Patterson moved to suppress, arguing that the police had no probable cause and needed a second search warrant in order to conduct the second series of DNA tests. He argued that while there was one seizure of his blood, there were two separate searches; and the second tests were performed without a valid warrant. In denying Patterson's motion to suppress, the trial court rhetorically commented that if Patterson's argument were followed to its logical conclusion, police would need to get a warrant whenever they wanted to perform fingerprint comparisons. Patterson disagreed, arguing that fingerprint files already exist in a separate database, but the trial court denied Patterson's motion.

On appeal, Patterson argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress his blood and the DNA test results. Specifically, he argues that the second series of DNA tests were warrantless searches prohibited by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.2

When we review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence,

[w]e review the record for substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's ruling. We do not reweigh the evidence. We resolve conflicting evidence in favor of the trial court and consider any substantial uncontroverted evidence. If the basis for the ruling on a motion to suppress is unclear, we will uphold the trial court if a reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. The credibility of witnesses is for the trial court to determine.

Moore v. State, 723 N.E.2d 442, 448 (Ind. Ct.App.2000) (quoting Willsey v. State, 698 N.E.2d 784, 789 (Ind.1998) (citations omitted)).

We first consider whether the analysis of DNA is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." U.S. CONST. amend. IV; Shepherd v. State, 690 N.E.2d 318 (Ind.Ct. App.1997). The Supreme Court has held that the analyses of biological samples are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995).

In Schmerber, the defendant was in a hospital receiving treatment for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Believing that Schmerber was driving under the influence of alcohol, the police directed a physician to withdraw a blood sample for chemical analysis. Schmerber did not consent to the procedure. The subsequent analysis revealed that he was intoxicated. After Schmerber's conviction, he argued on appeal that the withdrawal of his blood was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court found that Schmerber's Fourth Amendment rights had not been violated because there were exigent circumstances created by the dissipation of the alcohol from his body. Schmerber, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908. Further, the testing procedures were reasonable and performed incident to Schmerber's lawful arrest. Although the Court held that the testing in this case was exempt from Fourth Amendment protections, it held that "testing procedures plainly constitute searches of `persons,' and depend antecedently upon seizures of `persons,' within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment]." Id. at 1834.

In Skinner, the Federal Railroad Administration promulgated regulations requiring railroads to conduct blood and urine screens after train accidents involving death, injury, the release of hazardous material, or major damage to railroad property. Certain labor organizations brought suit seeking to enjoin the regulations. The labor organizations argued that the collection of blood and urine samples without particularized suspicion was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the government had a compelling interest in regulating the conduct of railroad workers to ensure safety, and that the government's compelling interest outweighed the privacy interests of the workers. Skinner, 489 U.S. 602, 109 S.Ct. 1402,103 L.Ed.2d 639. However, the Court again made it clear "that the collection and subsequent analysis of the requisite biological samples must be deemed Fourth Amendment searches,...." Id. at 1413 (emphasis added). Additionally, Von Raab and Vernonia have recognized this holding.

Likewise, since Skinner, we have recognized that the taking of biological samples is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Cutter v. State, 646 N.E.2d 704 (Ind.Ct. App.1995); King v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1389 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). Most recently, we have also recognized the Court's holding that the testing of biological samples is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Linke v. Northwestern School Corp., 734 N.E.2d 252 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (state compelled collection and testing of urine constitutes Fourth Amendment search). Therefore, it is clear that DNA tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment.

We now turn to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Garcia–torres v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 30 June 2011
    ...taking of a biological sample, such as a DNA sample, constitutes a ‘search’ for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”); Patterson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 4, 9 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (same). Based on the foregoing authority it is clear to me that a cheek swab is a search within the meaning of the Feder......
  • People v. Garvin
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 23 March 2006
    ...Action Nos. JV-512600 & JV-512797, 187 Ariz. 419, 930 P.2d 496 (App.1996); L.S. v. State, 805 So.2d 1004 (Fla.App.2001); Patterson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 4 (Ind.App. 2000); State v. Maass, 275 Kan. 328, 64 P.3d 382 (2003); Landry v. Attorney General, 429 Mass. 336, 709 N.E.2d 1085 (1999); Coo......
  • People v. Garvin
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 June 2004
    ...802 N.E.2d 1127 (2003); In re D.L.C., 124 S.W.3d 354 (Tex.Ct.App.2003); L.S. v. State, 805 So.2d 1004 (Fla.App.2001); Patterson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 4 (Ind.App.2000); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359, 998 P.2d 166 (2000); Johnson v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 654, 529 S.E.2d 769 (2000); Roe v. Marc......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 10 April 2013
    ...Population statistical analysis for DNA evidence has been found to have a valid and reliable scientific foundation. Patterson v. State, 742 N.E.2d 4, 12 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). In the present case, Keeling, a forensic biologist for the Indiana State Police Laboratory, who holds a bachelor of sci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT