State v. Elkins, 242 P.3d 1223

Two victims, J.L. (1994) and E.L. (1995), were attacked; DNA collected at hospital and entered into CODIS.
CODIS matched Elkins' DNA profile to both cases after his prior California arrest placed his DNA in CODIS.
Lawrence detectives obtained a California DNA sample from Elkins; KBI confirmed a match to both victims’ samples.
Contamination: Schueler admitted accidentally contaminating E.L.’s slides with her own DNA in 1996; she testified contamination did not invalidate results.
Schueler testified a CODIS “hit” linked Elkins to the cases; defense sought mistrial and limiting instructions; trial proceeded with cross-examination of the DNA witnesses.
Elkins was convicted on all counts; sentencing issues followed, including challenges to confrontation rights and discovery practices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation rights and CODIS hit testimony	Elkins argues the CODIS hit is testimonial.	State contends CODIS hit is non-testimonial DNA data.	Confrontation not violated; CODIS data not testimonial.
Admission of CODIS hit and presence of California official	Elkins lacked cross-examination of the California official.	CODIS hit derived from database, not a testimonial statement by the official.	No error; CODIS hit testimony permissible.
Pretrial discovery—envelope notes about contamination	Notes undisclosed; mistrial required.	Notes not dispositive; no abuse of discretion.	No abuse; mistrial not warranted.
Offender index reference and limiting instruction	Evidence should have been limited; potential Rule 60-455 issue.	Isolated reference; no limiting instruction requested.	No reversible error; no instruction required.
Prosecutorial conduct—burden shifting during cross-examination	Cross-exam re retesting could shift burden to defendant.	Cross-examination explored best practices; not burden shifting.	No prosecutorial misconduct.

State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (2009) (DNA is non-testimonial; CODIS data are physical evidence not testimonial.)
State v. Laturner, 289 Kan. 727 (2009) (Confrontation issues with drug analysis certificates; functionally testimonial similar to live testimony.)
State v. Henderson, 284 Kan. 267 (2007) (Unavailability of declarant does not condemn confrontation rights where no testimonial statement exists.)
State v. Abu-Fakher, 274 Kan. 584 (2002) (Confrontation and trial rulings—abuse of discretion standard.)
State v. Merrills, 37 Kan. App. 2d 81 (2007) (Sentencing considerations aligned with Johnson/Ivory precedents.)