Harris v. State
561 S.W.3d 766
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Harris was charged with rape and second-degree battery for assaulting Kenneshia Wilson; jury convicted him of attempted rape and second-degree battery and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 744 months.
- Wilson testified to severe physical assault, loss of consciousness, and that Harris attempted sex but could not obtain an erection; Harris claimed the sexual encounter was consensual.
- A sexual-assault kit (rectal, vaginal, oral swabs) was collected at UAMS by nurse Amanda Frost, but Frost did not testify at trial. DNA from a rectal swab matched Harris.
- Forensic witnesses at the crime lab (serologist Ganley and DNA examiner Glaze) tested the swabs but did not collect or label them; Detective Kemp testified he retrieved a sealed kit from UAMS and delivered it to the crime lab.
- Harris objected that the swab labels and results were testimonial (Confrontation Clause) and that the swabs lacked proper chain-of-custody/authentication because Frost did not testify. The trial court admitted the swabs; Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether labels on swabs and related evidence were testimonial, violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Labels on swabs were made for evidentiary use by Frost and thus testimonial; Frost's absence denied confrontation | Admitting lab testimony and kit evidence without Frost was permissible; labels not testimonial or error harmless | Court: Even if labels were testimonial, any Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given victim's testimony, injuries, and overall strength of case |
| Whether swabs and kit were properly authenticated / chain of custody established | Lack of testimony from the collector (Frost) left an insufficient chain; could be tampering or mislabeling | Testimony from victim and detective about collection date, sealed kit retrieval, and lab handling sufficed; minor uncertainties go to weight, not admissibility | Court: No abuse of discretion; chain of custody was sufficiently established and, in any event, any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (right to confront witnesses applies to states)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements absent witness for cross-examination)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (analyst’s forensic report is testimonial; analyst must be available for confrontation)