Freddie L. Alcantar, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 70 N.E.3d 353

Victim Debra Jones was found stabbed to death in her home on August 30, 2013; multiple defensive wounds and fatal neck stabbings were present.
Freddie Alcantar (defendant) lived with his wife Erika, had been barred from Debra’s home months earlier, and was implicated by DNA recovered from several crime-scene stains.
Initial DNA testing (Jan 2014) identified major contributors but could not evaluate minor contributors until ISP adopted the 2p algebraic formula (Nov 2014), which then linked Alcantar and Debra as minor contributors across stains.
While jailed awaiting trial Alcantar told inmate Travis Gipson, “I did it,” and Gipson later told police; Gipson testified at trial. A recorded prior interview of Gipson with detectives was disclosed mid-trial (the recording itself had not been previously disclosed).
Defense moved to dismiss for the late disclosure; the trial court denied dismissal, offered a continuance (which defense declined), and Alcantar was convicted and sentenced to 65 years.
On appeal Alcantar challenged (1) denial of dismissal for the discovery violation and (2) admission of 2p-based minor-profile DNA evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Alcantar)	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying motion to dismiss for late disclosure of Gipson's recorded interview	Late-recording disclosure was inadvertent; remedy other than dismissal (continuance) was appropriate	Late disclosure violated due process and Sixth Amendment and prejudiced defense; dismissal required	Waived by defendant for declining offered continuance; no abuse of discretion in denying dismissal
Whether admission of minor-profile DNA results using the 2p formula was admissible under Rule 702	2p is an accepted, reliable statistical method (endorsed by NRC-II and SWGDAM); experts’ testimony admissible and challenges go to weight	2p is controversial, not generally accepted or empirically validated as used by ISP; testimony should have been excluded	Trial court did not abuse discretion; sufficient foundation that 2p rests on reliable scientific principles—issues go to weight and cross-examination

Berry v. State, 715 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 1999) (trial courts have broad discretion in sanctioning discovery violations; reversal only for abuse causing prejudice)
Fleming v. State, 833 N.E.2d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (failure to request a continuance when it would cure discovery harm results in waiver)
Smith v. State, 702 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 1998) (DNA testimony must meet Rule 702 reliability requirements; "DNA" label alone is not automatically admissible)
Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (Rule 702 gatekeeping should not be unduly burdensome; methodology reliability suffices at admissibility stage)
McGrew v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. 1997) (no fixed checklist for satisfying Rule 702(b); trial court assesses general scientific reliability)