Background

• Defendant Bernard Albert Steppe was convicted of second degree murder with firearm enhancements and attempted murder, and sentenced to two 25-to-life terms plus a 15-to-life term and nine years.
• Defendant appealed on grounds including DNA analysis evidence and confrontation rights, denial of discovery, and a juror-related issue; appellate court affirmed with corrections to abstracts.
• Factual backdrop: in January 2007, shots were fired at a law office; bullets damaged doors; defendant was nearby in a related building; he was stopped by police with shell casings and bloodstains on him.
• DNA evidence showed victim’s DNA on defendant’s clothing and gun grip; there were multiple DNA matches involving the victim and defendant.
• A DNA technical reviewer and a lab analyst testified about raw data, independent review, and conclusions, raising confrontation-clause objections by defense.
• The trial court admitted DNA testimony under evolving case law post-Williams/Lopez, with the appellate court concluding any error was harmless and correcting the judgment abstracts.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2230 (U.S. 2012) (DNA reports not automatically testimonial; primary purpose and reliability factors discussed)
• Lopez, 55 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2012) (DNA lab report not testimonial where formality lacking and machine data not attributed to operator)
• Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates introduced to prove truth of assertion; testimonial nature debated)
• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (requires confrontation for signed forensic reports; non-testifying analyst insufficient)
• Geier, 41 Cal.4th 555 (Cal. 2007) (contemporaneous observation vs. testimonial reporting distinction in DNA evidence)
• Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (companion case discussing confrontation and testimony context)