State v. Eugenio Caliz-Bautista
162 Idaho 833
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Eugenio Caliz-Bautista was charged with felony lewd conduct and felony sexual abuse of a child; DNA from a saliva sample on the victim matched the defendant.
- Defense obtained court-funded DNA expert to review the State crime-lab procedures and potentially challenge contamination and protocol compliance.
- Defense disclosure stated the expert would testify that multiple samples were "out in the laboratory" simultaneously during extraction, violating lab protocol; no written expert report was produced.
- The State moved in limine to exclude the expert as speculative; the district court initially granted exclusion subject to an offer of proof.
- At trial the expert gave an offer-of-proof: he opined the lab’s manual requires separation by "time and/or space," that all sealed samples were present in the lab at once, and that this increased contamination risk, but he could not identify a protocol violation, quantify contamination risk, or show contamination actually occurred.
- The district court excluded the expert testimony as speculative and not helpful to the jury; the jury convicted on sexual abuse and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defense expert testimony regarding alleged violation of State lab protocol | State: Expert testimony is speculative and lacks factual foundation; should be excluded. | Caliz-Bautista: Expert would show samples were simultaneously present in lab and protocol was violated, supporting contamination defense. | Court: Exclusion affirmed; expert offered no factual basis showing a protocol breach or how separation requirement was defined/met or violated. |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on contamination risk | State: No evidence contamination occurred; expert cannot quantify risk—testimony would be conjectural. | Caliz-Bautista: Expert can show increased contamination risk due to lab practices even if not quantifiable. | Court: Exclusion affirmed; testimony only suggested possibilities, did not establish contamination or a reliable probability, so would not assist jury. |
| Sufficiency of offer-of-proof / foundation for expert opinion | State: Defense failed to supply required foundation or report tying opinions to lab records. | Caliz-Bautista: Offer-of-proof and expert review of lab manual were sufficient to raise admissible impeachment evidence. | Court: Offer-of-proof insufficient—expert did not connect records to a specific violation and gave no substantive foundation; discretionary exclusion proper. |
| Standard for admitting expert testimony under I.R.E. 702 and Idaho precedent | State: Trial court properly applied standards—expert must be qualified and testimony must be tied to facts to aid jury. | Caliz-Bautista: Expert qualified; testimony about best practices and risk should be admitted. | Court: Rule 702 requires relevance and factual tie; speculative opinions are inadmissible. Exclusion was within court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643 (expert-evidence admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sidwell v. William Prym, Inc., 112 Idaho 76 (trial court discretion in qualifying experts)
- J-U-B Engineers, Inc. v. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 146 Idaho 311 (expert opinion inadmissible if unsubstantiated by facts)
- Bromley v. Garey, 132 Idaho 807 (opinions are speculative when not based on sufficient evidence)
- Adams v. State, 158 Idaho 530 (testimony is speculative when evidence insufficient for certain knowledge)
- Nield v. Pocatello Health Servs., Inc., 156 Idaho 802 (expert testimony suggesting only possibilities may be excluded)
- Slack v. Kelleher, 140 Idaho 916 (speculative opinions properly excluded)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony must be sufficiently tied to facts to aid the trier of fact)