222 A.3d 319
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- In June 2017 Quinton Burns reported that Clarence Berry carjacked him at gunpoint; police found Berry driving the stolen van and a pellet gun inside.
- The State’s lab technician tested swabs from the pellet gun against a cheek swab from Berry, produced electropherograms, and concluded Berry’s DNA was on the gun and that controls showed no contamination.
- Under CJ § 10-915 the State provided notice and sent the .fsa raw data files and electropherograms of the test samples, but did not produce printed or otherwise accessible electropherograms for the positive/negative control samples; the raw .fsa files could only be opened with GeneMapper software the Public Defender did not have.
- Defense counsel repeatedly requested accessible copies of control data (about ten pages) and was refused; counsel was allowed only to view the raw data at the State lab on GeneMapper and was denied paper copies.
- Trial court admitted the DNA evidence under CJ § 10-915 without a Frye–Reed hearing; Berry was convicted on six counts and appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the State’s production (raw .fsa files only) failed CJ § 10-915 because it effectively required defendants to hire experts to access control data, vacated the convictions, and remanded for a Frye–Reed hearing; the court also rejected Berry’s claim that extrinsic impeachment evidence should have been admitted under Rule 5-613.
Issues
| Issue | Berry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State complied with CJ § 10-915 by providing DNA data | State failed to provide accessible control electropherograms; raw .fsa files that require GeneMapper are practically inaccessible and force retention of experts | Sent all raw data and sample electropherograms; statute does not require accessible copies of control electropherograms | State must provide underlying DNA data, including control data, in an accessible form; failure to do so defeats § 10-915 exemption and requires Frye–Reed hearing; convictions vacated and remanded |
| Whether the court erred in excluding extrinsic impeachment evidence (recorded police interview of Burns) under Md. Rule 5-613 | The recording showed prior inconsistent statements about the girlfriend’s location and Burns’s familiarity with Berry and should have been admitted to impeach his credibility | The recording was either not inconsistent or the procedural prerequisites for extrinsic impeachment were unmet | Exclusion was proper because Brooks checklist (Md. Rule 5-613) requires the witness to deny the prior statement before extrinsic evidence is admitted; Burns did not deny the challenged portions |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 (2017) (treatment of standards-based automatic admissibility under CJ § 10-915)
- Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38 (1996) (explaining Frye–Reed and legislative intent behind § 10-915)
- Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (1978) (Frye general-acceptance test for scientific evidence)
- Young v. State, 388 Md. 99 (2005) (opponent’s right to challenge DNA evidence weight via cross-examination under § 10-915)
- Brooks v. State, 439 Md. 698 (2014) (procedural checklist for admitting extrinsic prior-inconsistent statements under Md. Rule 5-613)
- Sieglein v. Schmidt, 224 Md. App. 222 (2015) (statutory interpretation that statutes mentioning older technologies may encompass newer techniques)