Cooper v. State
434 Md. 209
Md.2013Background
- Cooper was convicted in Baltimore City Circuit Court of second degree rape and multiple sexual-offense counts after a napkin with victim’s semen yielded DNA linking to Cooper.
- Bode Technology Group analyzed items; Sarah Shields conducted testing but did not testify; Ashley Fulmer testified about Shields’s testing under her supervision.
- Fulmer testified to Bode’s procedures and reviewed Shields’s work, confirming results for the jury.
- The napkin’s chain of custody traced from Victim’s SAFE exam to hospital, to evidence control, to the Bode lab, showing no tampering doubts.
- Shields’s two-page report was admitted through Fulmer’s testimony, and Santos connected napkin DNA to Cooper’s cheek-swab profile.
- The defense raised chain-of-custody and hearsay concerns, and asserted Confrontation Clause rights were violated by admitting the non-testifying analyst’s report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chain of custody sufficiency for napkin and admissibility of Shields report | Cooper: no proven chain of custody; admission of Shields report improper | State: chain of custody established; report admissible as basis for Fulmer’s testimony | Chain of custody sufficient; Shields report admissible for weight under Rule 5-703 |
| Hearsay admissibility of Shields report | Shields report itself is hearsay and improper | Under Rule 5-703, Fulmer could rely on Shields’s data for expert opinion | Shields report admissible under Rule 5-703 as basis for Fulmer’s opinion and not hearsay |
| Confrontation Clause compliance | Admission of Shields report violated Confrontation Clause | Derr II framework; Williams standard; report not testimonial | No Confrontation Clause violation; Shields report not testimonial under Williams/Thomas standard |
| Excited utterance and rule-based hearsay concerns about Victim statements | Roommate and Grubb testimony improperly narrated Victim’s details | Statements fit excited utterance exception under Rule 5-803(b)(2) | Victim’s statements admitted as excited utterances; not inadmissible hearsay |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38 (Md. 1996) (DNA admissibility reliability guidance; general rule that DNA results are reliable and admissible when procedures are proper)
- Breeding v. State, 220 Md. 193 (Md. 1959) (chain-of-custody standard requires reasonable probability no tampering)
- Nixon v. State, 204 Md. 475 (Md. 1954) (recognizes chain-of-custody sufficiency principles for no tampering)
- Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88 (Md. 2013) (confrontation analysis following Williams; Derr II clarifies formalized evidence standard)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic testing evidence deemed testimonial when sworn/certified)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (testimonial nature of forensic reports depends on formality)