Stewart, Daymond Lamont, PD-1643-14

Stewart was indicted for burglary of a habitation and aggravated sexual assault, with an enhancement for a prior burglary conviction.
DNA testing on the complainant’s undergarments yielded a mixed profile; a buccal swab from Stewart produced a compatible profile, and a single-source profile matched Stewart’s DNA in the wallet sample.
The victim identified Stewart at trial after an initial lineup, asserting certainty based on facial features.
A DPS forensic scientist testified about DNA analysis and the Popstats population-statistics in connection with the DNA match.
Stewart argued that the DNA testimony violated his constitutional right of confrontation because the FBI lab population-statistics experts were not cross-examined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of DNA population-statistics violated confrontation	Stewart contends confrontation rights were violated due to surrogate DNA testimony.	State argues no constitutional violation; DNA reliability established; no need to cross-examine FBI statisticians.	No Confrontation violation; evidence admissible and judgment affirmed.

Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (reliability factors for DNA evidence; no expert on statistics required)
Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (DNA evidence admissibility standards; statistical expertise not prerequisite)
Jessop v. State, 368 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (DNA admissibility and Rule 702 considerations)
Roberson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (statistical evidence and reliability in DNA testing)
Sims v. State, 99 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (confrontation and reliability standards in DNA cases)
Gonzalez v. McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 195 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2006) (governing authority on review and opinions)
Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (evidentiary governance between federal and state constitutions)
Farrell v. State, 864 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc; limits of appellate review)
Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (remand and opinion standards)
Thompson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (dissent on discretionary review procedures)