State v. Bolden
103 So. 3d 377
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Kevin D. Bolden was convicted of two counts of aggravated rape with concurrent life sentences without parole.
- Convictions rested on DNA test results linking him to the 1998 and 1999 rapes, without live testimony from the analysts who generated the profiles.
- DNA evidence originated from ACL and a private lab (OCM); analysts’ reports were admitted, but trial lacked testimony from the analysts who produced the critical profiles.
- CODIS match interpretations and cross-lab methodologies were relied upon to connect the reference sample to the crime-scene samples, with ACL staff reviewing and interpreting the results.
- Defendant moved in limine to exclude the DNA test results lacking confrontational testimony; the trial court denied the motion, treating the issue as weight rather than admissibility.
- On appeal, the court held the Confrontation Clause was violated and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation right violated by DNA evidence | Bolden | Bolden | Confrontation rights violated; admission of DNA results without testimony improper |
| Harmless error doctrine applicability | State | Bolden | Error not harmless; convictions must be reversed and cannot be retried |
| Effect of La. R.S. 15:4-99 et seq. applicability | State | Bolden | Statutes not applicable due to lack of certificate of analysis offered |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. (Supreme Court, 2011) (confrontation requires testifying witnesses or alternatives to exclude non-testifying corroborating analyses)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004) (confrontation requires testing testimonial statements via cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court, 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and subject to confrontation)
- Robinson v. State, 817 So.2d 1131 (La. 2002) (harmless-error framework for confrontation violations; factors to consider)
- State v. Wright, 690 So.2d 850 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) (courts consider cumulative evidence and overall strength of the prosecution's case)
- La. v. Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court, 2011) (state cannot admit test results from a non-testifying analyst when no independent corroboration is provided)