People v. Johnson
406 Ill. App. 3d 114
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Johnson was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault after a jury trial that admitted DNA evidence.
- Cellmark analyst Charlotte Word reviewed case materials but did not perform the testing; ISP lab scientist Schoon performed the tests and matched defendant's DNA to a single male donor profile.
- DNA expert testimony relied on Cellmark procedures and accreditation; Word testified about the process without having tested the sample.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude Word’s testimony on foundation and confrontation grounds; the court allowed the testimony if it reflected standard expert reliance and proper documentation.
- Post-trial motions argued the Cellmark DNA profile was improperly admitted due to confrontation concerns and lack of foundation for calibration of testing equipment; the trial court denied the motions.
- On appeal, Johnson contends the Cellmark DNA profile was testimonial hearsay under Crawford/Melendez-Diaz and that there was insufficient foundation for the testing equipment; the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation and hearsay of the Cellmark DNA profile | Johnson argues Cellmark results are testimonial and untested in court. | Johnson contends lack of cross-examination of Cellmark analysts violated confrontation. | No Crawford violation; testimony admissible as basis for experts' opinions. |
| Foundational basis for DNA evidence from Cellmark | Word’s and Schoon's testimony properly foundational based on Cellmark procedures. | No evidence that testing equipment was properly calibrated/ functioning. | No foundational error; reliance on accredited Cellmark procedures suffices. |
| Forfeiture and plain error review | Any error could be reviewed for plain error because of confrontation concerns. | Timing of objections and posttrial issues permit plain error review if warranted. | Issue forfeited but, under plain error review, no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 238 Ill.2d 125 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2010) (Cellmark DNA analysis and confrontation under Melendez-Diaz distinctions)
- People v. Raney, 324 Ill.App.3d 703 (Appellate Court, 2001) (foundation for expert testimony relying on testing equipment)
- People v. Wilson, 84 Ill.2d 186 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1981) (Rule 703 foundation for testimony relying on others' data)
- People v. Spicer, 379 Ill.App.3d 441 (Appellate Court, 2007) (confrontation and admissibility principles for DNA-related testimony)