362908
Mich. Ct. App.May 11, 2023Background
- In November 2001 a MSU student reported a sexual assault; swabs and clothing were collected and sent to the Michigan State Police (MSP) lab; seminal fluid and sperm cells were identified and DNA extracts were prepared and entered into CODIS.
- A CODIS hit in 2018 matched the 2002 DNA profile to Torbert; MSP obtained known DNA from Torbert and reanalyzed the original 2002 DNA extracts in January 2020.
- Between 2018 and 2020 the original 2002 case jacket went missing and MSUPD’s original swabs were apparently destroyed; the extract tubes retained MSP labels and item identifiers and a 2002 lab report described the extracts.
- The 2020 reanalysis identified Torbert’s DNA in the male fractions from vaginal, rectal, perianal swabs and underwear; Torbert was charged with CSC-I (alternate CSC-III) and moved to exclude the DNA evidence under MRE 702/Daubert.
- Torbert argued the missing case jacket and original swabs prevented verification of the 2002 extraction, undermining reliability, chain of custody, and his due-process right to review underlying data; the prosecution relied on the 2020 reanalysis data and lab labels.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the 2002 extraction methods reliable and that chain-of-custody/recordkeeping issues went to weight not admissibility; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Torbert’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2020 DNA reanalysis under MRE 702/Daubert (reliability of 2002 extraction) | 2020 reanalysis used accepted methods; original extracts and labels exist; extraction methods unchanged and reliable | Missing case jacket prevents proof extraction was performed correctly in 2002, so 2020 results lack reliable foundation | Admission affirmed; trial court reasonably found 2002 extraction reliable and reanalysis admissible |
| Effect of missing case jacket and original swabs (chain of custody) | Labels on extract tubes and 2002 report reasonably tie extracts to the swabs; remaining issues affect weight | Loss of records and originals means labels could be wrong and samples misidentified | Deficiencies go to weight, not admissibility; reasonable degree of certainty established that extracts were what prosecution claimed |
| Requirement to show laboratory followed generally accepted procedures (People v Adams precedent) | Standards about recordkeeping do not here undermine the reliability of the testing or the extracts | Only the case jacket can show compliance with generally accepted lab procedures; missing jacket mandates exclusion | Adams does not require exclusion where testing reliability is intact; recordkeeping failures that do not show faulty testing do not bar admission |
| Due process / confrontation and ability to test underlying data | 2020 reanalysis data is available; defendant can cross-examine analysts and challenge weight | Missing original data and case jacket deny effective review and cross-examination, violating due process | No due-process violation; defendant has 2020 data and may attack weight/chain-of-custody at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v Murphy (On Remand), 282 Mich. App. 571 (clear-error review of factual findings on admissibility)
- People v Brooks, 304 Mich. App. 318 (definition of clear error and review standards)
- People v White, 208 Mich. App. 126 (chain-of-custody defects affect weight, not admissibility if reasonable certainty is shown)
- People v Herndon, 246 Mich. App. 371 (possibility of tampering insufficient; must show actual loss/misidentification to exclude)
- People v Smith, 498 Mich. 466 (de novo review of alleged due-process violations)
- People v Adams, 195 Mich. App. 267 (prosecutor must show generally accepted lab procedures followed in particular case)
- Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharm, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping role for admissibility of scientific expert evidence)