State v. Manion, 295 P.3d 270

Manion appeals a juvenile-court disposition for unlawful possession of a firearm, challenging DNA-evidence admission and sufficiency of evidence.
DNA evidence from a .22 caliber firearm was presented at a fact-finding hearing; the testing involved the Crime Lab and a peer-review process.
The testifying DNA expert was the technical peer reviewer who independently reviewed the original analyst’s work, which had been reviewed but not testified to.
The draft DNA report by the original analyst was testimonial; the peer reviewer testified with an independent opinion consistent with the original findings.
The court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated and that there was sufficient evidence to convict Manion of possession.
On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction and disposition, citing circumstantial evidence including proximity to the firearm, aDNA profile, and flight from police.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation	Manion argues the DNA peer reviewer violated confrontation rights by testifying about others’ testing.	State relies on independent opinion theory and non-testimonial nature of underlying data.	No Confrontation Clause violation.
Sufficiency of the evidence for possession	DNA trace is slim and does not prove possession.	Circumstantial evidence shows actual possession.	Evidence sufficiently supports actual possession.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation and testimonial statements framework)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (testimonial certificates require cross-examination absent unavailable analysts)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony may violate confrontation when it substitutes for testimony of non-signing analyst)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2231 (U.S. 2012) (recognizes debate over expert testimony offered for non-truth purposes; plurality's rationale debated)
Lui v. State, 153 Wn. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (independent opinion by testifying experts who rely on others' data)
Bullcoming, 131 S. Ct. 2705, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (see Bullcoming for independent-opinion framework)
State v. Jasper, 158 Wn. App. 518 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (discussion of confrontation in DNA/forensic contexts)
State v. Jasper II, 174 Wn.2d 96 (Wash. 2012) (affirmation of confrontation principles in reviewing forensic-evidence testimony)
State v. Lui, 153 Wn. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishes independent opinion from surrogate recitation)