Phillips v. State

• Decision Date: 27 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. 456, Sept. Term, 2013.,456, Sept. Term, 2013.
• Parties: Richmond D. PHILLIPS, v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

226 Md.App. 1

126 A.3d 739

Richmond D. PHILLIPS,

v.STATE of Maryland.

No. 456, Sept. Term, 2013.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 27, 2015.

Reconsideration Denied Dec. 24, 2015.

Daniel Kobrin (Paul B. DeWolfe, Public Defender, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellant.

Robert Taylor, Jr. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for Appellee.

Panel: LEAHY, FRIEDMAN, IRMA S. RAKER (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

FRIEDMAN, J.

This case requires us to decide what to do with a statute that appears to be obsolete regarding the admissibility of DNA evidence.

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, appellant Richmond Phillips ("Phillips") was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, one count of use of a handgun in a crime of violence, and one count of child abuse in the first degree. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Phillips challenges the DNA evidence the State used against him. The State argues that the DNA evidence was automatically admissible under § 10–915 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings ("CJP") Article of the Maryland Code. Section 10–915, however, requires that, to be admissible, a DNA profile must include certification that the analysis was performed according to standards promulgated by two entities that no longer exist. Phillips asserts that the DNA evidence failed to comply with this factually obsolete statute and, therefore, that the trial court was correct in conducting a Frye–Reed hearing to determine whether to admit the DNA evidence. Phillips alleges, however, that the trial court erred in concluding that the DNA evidence was admissible under Frye–Reed.

For the following reasons, we will affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Phillips was charged and convicted of the murders of his ex-girlfriend, Wynetta Wright, and their 11–month–old child, Jaylin Wright. Wynetta's body was found in a park near the Hillcrest Heights Community Center. Wynetta died of a gunshot wound

to the head. Jaylin was found dead in Wynetta's car in a nearby parking lot. Jaylin died of hyperthermia as a result of being left in a hot vehicle for an extended period of time. Phillips admitted to meeting with Wynetta during the early morning hours of May 31, 2011, but denied any part in her or their child's death.

The police obtained DNA samples,¹ which were tested in June 2011 by forensic chemist Jessica Charak of the Prince George's County DNA laboratory. Two of the DNA samples are relevant to this appeal: one was from the steering wheel of Wynetta's car, and the other was from Phillips' buccal swab.² Based on DNA analysis of the two samples, it was Charak's opinion that the steering wheel sample contained material that was consistent with Phillips' DNA and, therefore, Phillips could not be excluded as a contributor. The steering wheel sample also contained genetic material from Wynetta, Jaylin, and two other unknown contributors. In her report, Charak calculated that "[t]he chances of selecting an unrelated individual from the random population who would be included as a possible contributor to the mixed DNA profile obtained from the evidence sample at the remaining tested loci are approximately ... 1 in 2.93 million individuals in the African American population." Additionally, Charak's report included the following statement that figures prominently in this appeal: "The DNA profiles reported below were determined by procedures which have been validated according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories."

Prior to trial, Phillips filed a motion in limine to exclude any expert testimony pertaining to the State's DNA evidence, asserting that the Prince George's County DNA laboratory's interpretation of complex, low copy number DNA samples³ was not based on generally accepted scientific standards and was thus inadmissible under the Frye–Reed standard.⁴ The State countered that the DNA evidence at issue is automatically admissible under CJP § 10–915 (the "DNA Admissibility Statute").

The trial court undertook a two-step process to determine the admissibility of expert testimony pertaining to the disputed DNA analysis. First, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether the Prince George's County DNA laboratory was in compliance with the DNA Admissibility Statute, and whether the resulting DNA evidence was therefore automatically admissible without a Frye–Reed hearing. The trial court determined that the Prince George's County DNA laboratory was not following the standards referred to by the DNA Admissibility Statute, and, therefore, that the DNA evidence was not automatically admissible pursuant to the statute. Second, the trial court conducted a Frye–Reed hearing. The trial court determined that the underlying scientific methods used by the Prince George's County DNA laboratory were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and, therefore, the DNA analysis would be admissible at trial.

The case proceeded to trial on January 14, 2013, and resulted in Phillips' conviction.

On March 22, 2013, the trial court sentenced Phillips to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Compliance with the DNA Admissibility Statute

Maryland's DNA Admissibility Statute provides:

(a) (1) Definitions. —In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)" means the molecules in all cellular forms that contain genetic information in a chemical structure of each individual.

(3) "DNA profile" means an analysis of genetic loci that have been validated according to standards established by:

(i) The Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM); or

(ii) The DNA Advisory Board of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(b) In general. —A statement from the testing laboratory setting forth that the analysis of genetic loci has been validated by standards established by TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board is sufficient to admit a DNA profile under this section.

(c) Purposes. —In any criminal proceeding, the evidence of a DNA profile is admissible to prove or disprove the identity of any person, if the party seeking to introduce the evidence of a DNA profile:

(1) Notifies in writing the other party or parties by mail at least 45 days before any criminal proceeding; and

(2) Provides, if applicable and requested in writing, the other party or parties at least 30 days before any criminal proceeding with:

(i) First generation film copy or suitable reproductions of autoradiographs, dot blots, slot blots, silver stained gels, test strips, control strips, and any other results generated in the course of the analysis;

(ii) Copies of laboratory notes generated in connection with the analysis, including chain of custody documents, sizing and hybridization information, statistical calculations, and worksheets;

(iii) Laboratory protocols and procedures utilized in the analysis;

(iv) The identification of each genetic locus analyzed; and

(v) A statement setting forth the genotype data and the profile frequencies for the databases utilized.

(d) Prerequisites. —If a party is unable to provide the information required under subsection (c) of this section at least 30 days prior to the criminal proceedings, the court may grant a continuance to permit such timely disclosures.

(e) Discovery. —Except as to the issue of admissibility under this section, subsection (c) of this section does not preclude discovery under the Maryland Rules relating to discovery, upon a showing of scientific relevance to a material issue regarding the DNA profile.

CJP § 10–915. The import of the statute is clear: so long as the sponsoring party complies with the notice provisions of subsection (c), a DNA profile will be automatically admissible to prove or disprove identity if it is accompanied by a statement from the testing laboratory that it was "validated by standards established by TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board."

CJP § 10–915(b). In Phillips' case, however, the DNA profile was accompanied by a certification stating, "[t]he DNA profiles reported below were determined by procedures which have been validated according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Quality Assurance Standards."

Thus, the threshold question is whether compliance with the FBI's Quality Assurance Standards is sufficient for automatic admissibility or whether we must insist on compliance with standards issued by TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board. If compliance with the FBI Quality Assurance Standards is sufficient, then the steering wheel DNA sample is automatically admissible because the Prince George's County DNA laboratory complied with those standards. If, on the other hand, the DNA analysis needed a statement that it complied with standards from either TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board (which it did not have), then the steering wheel sample is not automatically admissible. If not automatically admissible for this reason, the DNA analysis must satisfy the Frye–Reed standard of general acceptance in the scientific community before it may be admitted.

The issue is made more complicated because neither TWGDAM nor the DNA Advisory Board remain in existence. SWGDAM, About Us, http://perma.cc/VHA5–5FXX. Accordingly, compliance is impossible today.

1. The Problem of Obsolete Statutes

Statutes, from time to time, become obsolete. Statutes can become legally obsolete when they are completely superseded by a subsequent legislative enactment (but, for whatever reason, not deleted) or are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court or by the appellate courts of this State. Thus, for example, adoption of Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (Maryland's Equal Rights Amendment) rendered the "necessities statute," (then Md.Code. Ann. Art. 45, § 21),...