State v. Elkins, 242 P.3d 1223

Elkins was convicted in 2008 of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy for attacks on J.L. (1994) and E.L. (1995).
CODIS linked Elkins' DNA to both attacks after his DNA profile was in databases due to prior California incarceration.
KBI analyst Schueler testified about contamination of E.L.'s samples but maintained results were reliable.
CODIS hit testimony connected Elkins to the crimes; defense sought to exclude or limit the CODIS evidence.
Elkins challenged the CODIS evidence as a Confrontation Clause violation and raised related discovery and evidentiary issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CODIS hit testimony violated confrontation rights	Elkins's confrontation rights were violated by testimony about a CODIS hit.	CODIS data are non-testimonial physical evidence; the California analyst was not a witness.	No Confrontation Clause violation; CODIS data and related testimony are non-testimonial.
Whether failure to disclose envelope notes prejudiced the defense	Notes contradicted expert theories about contamination timing.	Notes do not undermine defense theory; no mistrial required.	No abuse of discretion; no mistrial warranted.
Whether reference to the CODIS offender index required limiting instruction	Index reference could be used to infer prior criminal history.	Index reference was isolated and did not suggest prior crimes; no instruction needed.	No abuse of discretion; absence of limiting instruction did not alter outcome.
Whether Prosecutorial cross-examination shifted burden or misused retesting discussion	Cross-examination improperly implied defendant must prove defenses by testing.	Cross-examination sought to show best practices; no burden shifting.	No prosecutorial misconduct; cross-examination was proper.
Whether sentencing issues required jury determination under Apprendi	History and upper-grid sentence should be decided by jury.	Kansas law as interpreted by Supreme Court precedents controls.	Affirmed sentencing framework per controlling precedents.

State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (2009) (DNA data in CODIS not testimonial; database is physical evidence)
State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727 (2009) (certified drug analysis certificates can violate Confrontation Clause)
State v. Henderson, 284 Kan. 267 (2007) (confrontation considerations; unavailable declarants)
Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2008) (DNA samples analogized to non-testimonial physical evidence)
United States v. Zimmerman, 514 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2007) (DNA database context; non-testimonial nature of data)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood test evidence as non-testimonial)