STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARWIN RODRIGUEZ-FERREIRAÂ (10-10-1807, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1831-15T1

Victim Mark Kendall was fatally stabbed in Jersey City; a bloody knife wrapped in boxer shorts was found two blocks away and two Nike sandals found near scene and park.
Kendall's cell phone showed calls to a contact named "Darwin" (number registered to defendant's mother). Defendant lived nearby and left the country on a one-way ticket the day after the murder.
DNA testing linked Kendall to blood on the knife, sandal, and to bloodstains in defendant's mother’s home; boxer-short scrapings produced a major DNA profile matching defendant via a Low Copy Number (LCN) test and a mixed blood sample containing both Kendall and defendant.
Defendant was convicted of murder and weapons offenses; direct appeal affirmed and sentence issues remanded; defendant later filed a PCR petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a Frye hearing to challenge the LCN DNA testimony.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie Strickland ineffective-assistance showing; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a plenary PCR hearing focused on counsel’s failure to seek a Frye (N.J.R.E. 104) hearing on the novel LCN methodology.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a Frye hearing on LCN DNA testing	Trial court (and State) argued defendant failed to show prejudice under Strickland and thus no hearing was required	Counsel unreasonably failed to challenge novel LCN methodology that lacked general scientific acceptance, warranting a Frye hearing and, if excluded, a new trial	Reversed PCR denial; remanded for an evidentiary (Frye) hearing to evaluate admissibility of LCN evidence and counsel’s investigation/strategy

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes general-acceptance test for novel scientific evidence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Jack v. State, 144 N.J. 240 (1996) (defendant must identify specific acts/omissions outside reasonable professional assistance)
Preciose v. State, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (prima facie showing required for PCR evidentiary hearing; facts viewed favorably to petitioner)
Cummings v. State, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div.) (1999) (PCR claim must allege facts, not bald assertions; need affidavits/certifications for investigation claims)
Martini v. State, 160 N.J. 248 (1999) (counsel’s duty to investigate; reasonableness standard)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (evidentiary hearing required when there are disputed material facts)