State v. Alt, C9-92-2562
| Decision Date | 27 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-92-2562,C9-92-2562 |
| Citation | 504 N.W.2d 38 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Daryl Duane ALT, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Exclusion of both statistical evidence and nonstatistical opinion testimony of the significance of a DNA "match" has a critical impact when the prosecution's other evidence of identity is not strong.
2. Evidence of a DNA "match" based on RFLP test procedures performed at the FBI laboratory meets the Frye test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence.
3. Statistical frequencies of DNA band patterns on individual loci are admissible under the facts and circumstances of this case when calculated according to the NRC's "modified ceiling principle."
4. Nonstatistical opinion testimony on the significance of a DNA match is limited to testimony that the test results were consistent with and do not exclude defendant as the source of the forensic sample.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Raymond F. Schmitz, Olmsted County Atty., Rochester, Stephen Redding, Asst. Hennepin County Atty., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Charles Nicholas, Rochester, William Kennedy, Hennepin County Public Defender, Patrick J. Sullivan, Asst. Hennepin County Public Defender, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by ANDERSON, C.J., HUSPENI and DAVIES, JJ.
The prosecution appeals a pretrial order excluding statistical evidence and nonstatistical opinion testimony on the significance of a DNA "match." Respondent has filed a cross-appeal challenging the admission of the DNA test results. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Respondent Daryl Duane Alt is charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct, first degree assault, and attempted murder for the beating, rape, and attempted strangulation of a 15-year-old female. The alleged assault by Alt occurred in August 1990. In September 1990, biological samples from the victim's clothing worn during the attack, a vaginal swab taken during the victim's rape protocol examination, and body fluids from Alt and the victim were sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) laboratory in Washington, D.C. for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. Using standard DNA Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, the FBI compared the DNA profile from the crime scene biological samples against the body fluid samples taken from Alt and the victim.
The FBI analysis demonstrated that Alt's known DNA profile matched semen stains taken from the victim's clothing and vaginal swab across the four loci--sample fragments of DNA--tested. The FBI also determined the statistical frequency with which one could expect to find such a match among samples taken from three of its four major data bases. 1
The state received the FBI DNA test results in April 1991. At that time, the court proceedings had been stayed pending the state's appeal of the district court's order suppressing evidence. This court affirmed the district court's order in May 1991. See State v. Alt, 469 N.W.2d 732 (Minn.App.1991).
After the appeal, the state sought to admit the results of the DNA analysis and the FBI probability figures showing the statistical significance of the match. The state agreed to submit the probability evidence of a match at each locus separately, relying on State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.1987). The state agreed not to introduce the composite statistical frequency evidence on all four loci, as permitted under Minn.Stat. § 634.26 (1990). 2
Alt objected and moved to have the DNA test results excluded for failure to meet the admissibility criteria for novel scientific evidence under the modified Frye standard enunciated in State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422, 424 (Minn.1989) (discussing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)). Alt claimed that (1) the FBI laboratory did not comply with the appropriate standards and controls, and (2) experts in the relevant scientific community would not find the limited statistical evidence based on the FBI data bases reliable and trustworthy.
A pretrial Frye hearing on the admissibility of the DNA evidence took place on nine separate days over a three-month span, ending in March 1992. Seven expert witnesses testified at the hearing, four for the state and three for Alt.
In April 1992, the National Research Council issued its report, entitled "DNA Technology in Forensic Science" (NRC Report), which was prepared by the Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science. The NRC Report supplements the previously issued Technical Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM) guidelines for DNA testing procedures. 3 The parties agreed that the district court could consider the NRC Report as evidence in the case.
In May 1992, the district court issued its order limiting the use of DNA test results. The court found that FBI testing met the standards for both Frye and Schwartz and held that the DNA test results were admissible at trial. However, experts would be limited to testimony that indicated the test results did not exclude Alt as a possible source of the body fluids tested. It also determined that FBI statistical calculations did not have the general acceptance in the scientific community necessary for admissibility. Therefore, it concluded testimony regarding the probability of a match was inadmissible. In addition, the court ruled that the FBI's failure to meet the proficiency testing requirements of TWGDAM and the NRC Report should be submitted to the jury.
The state filed a motion to reconsider in June 1992. It claimed the court's findings regarding FBI compliance with TWGDAM were erroneous and the court's finding regarding the FBI statistical calculations was inconsistent with the NRC Report.
Before the hearing on the state's motion, the Minnesota Supreme Court filed its opinion in State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 419-20 (Minn.1992), in which it held that the FBI laboratory's protocol established an appropriate set of standards and guidelines, despite the lack of an independent laboratory audit of FBI testing. 4 Consequently, the state submitted a revised motion to reconsider, requesting a finding that the FBI testing procedures met the requirements of the TWGDAM guidelines and the NRC Report.
The district court heard the revised motion to reconsider in August 1992, at which time the state again offered to present statistical evidence of a DNA match consistent with Joon Kyu Kim and as presented in Jobe 5. In December 1992, the district court denied all motions relating to the admissibility of the DNA test results and confirmed its May 1992 order. 6
On appeal, the state challenges the district court's failure to admit statistical frequency evidence in a limited fashion, as provided under Joon Kyu Kim, and the exclusion of nonstatistical opinion testimony about the significance of a match. Alt cross-appeals, claiming the district court's finding that the FBI's protocol and procedures were sufficient for the admissibility of the DNA test results is clearly erroneous.
After briefing in this appeal, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion holding the Frye standard was superseded in the federal courts by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2792-96, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The state submitted a letter "brief" following the release of Daubert, and respondent has moved to strike this letter brief.
I. Has the state shown the district court's ruling will have a critical impact on the prosecution?
II. Did the district court properly admit the DNA test results?
III. Did the district court clearly err in ruling the probability of a random DNA match on individual loci did not meet the Frye test?
IV. Did the district court clearly err in excluding nonstatistical opinion testimony on the significance of a DNA match?
DNA testing for forensic purposes has great potential for use by the criminal justice system. It has the capacity to identify perpetrators of crime with a power of differentiation far beyond that of conventional serology. First used for forensic purposes in 1985, it is an outgrowth of medical diagnostic use.
The probative value of DNA testing does, however, have potential limitations. The possibilities for its misuse or abuse have raised important questions about its reliability, validity, and confidentiality. NRC Report at S-1 (prepublication manuscript). Lack of standardization, laboratory accreditation, and properly measured laboratory error rates, all noted in the NRC Report, are indices that this technology is still developing and highlight its limitations. As cases involving other scientific tests have demonstrated, even the more established forensic science techniques are not infallible. See, e.g., State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 581-82, 586 (Minn.1982) (). The immediate challenge facing the criminal justice system is to apply this developing scientific technology to the quest for truth in the courtroom.
As the Supreme Court noted in Daubert, "there are important differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for truth in the laboratory." Daubert, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798. The scientific quest for truth involves consideration and proof of all hypotheses--both the correct and incorrect. The legal quest for truth is limited to resolving issues finally and quickly, based on testing that is less forgiving of error and which requires more extensive controls. These distinctions must be considered when determining the admissibility of DNA test results and the accompanying statistical evidence and nonstatistical opinion testimony.
Comparing the forensic use of DNA testing in the legal setting to its medical diagnostic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstead v. State
...an intermediate appellate court again questioned the legislature's authority to render the statistics admissible in State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38, 41 n. 2 (Minn.App.1993), aff'd as modified, 505 N.W.2d 72 (Minn.1993). More recently, in State v. Bloom, 516 N.W.2d 159 (Minn.1994), the Minnesota......
-
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson
...331 (1994); Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884, 889 (Colo.1993); Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827, 828-29 (Fla.1993); State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38, 45-46 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); State v. Carter, 246 Neb. 953, 524 N.W.2d 763, 779 (1994); People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 102, 633 N.......
-
Taylor v. State
...Watson, 629 N.E.2d 634; State v. Davis, 860 S.W.2d 369 (Mo.App.E.D.1993); Mehlberg, 188 Ill.Dec. 598, 618 N.E.2d 1168; State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38 (Minn.App.1993). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Daubert did not require state court abolition of Frye, and left the issue to another d......
-
State v. Sivri
...State v. Cauthron, supra, 120 Wash.2d at 908, 846 P.2d 502, citing Committee report pp. 80, 82-83; see State v. Alt, 504 N.W.2d 38, 51 and n. 21 (Minn.App.1993) (holding that "statistical frequencies of individual loci should be admitted in this case if calculated according to the [Committe......