The People v. Barba
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cabdriver Keum Kim was murdered and Barba was charged with first degree murder and robbery.
- DNA evidence from hairs on the killer’s sweatshirt linked Barba to the crime, via Cellmark analyses.
- Reynolds testified about Wong’s lab results and procedures, rather than Wong testifying in person.
- Barba argued this violated his Confrontation Clause rights; the trial court admitted Reynolds’s testimony and the DNA reports.
- Appellate history: Barba I affirmed, Barba II affirmed on remand, Barba III reaffirmed after Bullcoming/Williams considerations, and the Supreme Court remanded for Williams-era analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reynolds’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause rights | Barba contends facially that Wong’s test results should have been testified by Wong. | Barba argues Reynolds’s independent opinion based on Wong’s notes suffices under Williams/Bullcoming framework. | Not violated; Reynolds’s testimony permissible as independent expert opinion. |
| Whether the DNA reports themselves were testimonial under Confrontation Clause | Barba argues reports function as testimonial affidavits invoking confrontation rights. | Barba asserts per Williams plurality that DNA reports are not testimonial when primary purpose is not to accuse a suspect. | Not a Confrontation Clause violation for admissibility; admissible with Reynolds’s cross-examined testimony. |
| Whether Williams controls the analysis of whether DNA testing is testimonial | Williams dictates DNA reports are generally not testimonial. | Williams is broad enough to cover post-suspect identification cases as Barba argues. | Court adopts Williams-based interpretation, allowing Reynolds’s testimony and non-testimonial classification of the reports. |
| Whether any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | If the DNA report was wrongly admitted, it could have affected verdict. | Even if error occurred, the combination of other evidence and Reynolds’s testimony renders error harmless. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; verdict upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (DNA certificate testimonial; confrontation requires testimony)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. _ (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony insufficient; certificate testimonial)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2239 (U.S. 2012) (DNA report not necessarily testimonial; primary purpose analysis)
- Lopez, 55 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2012) (non-testimonial machine-generated results; limitations on testimonial status)
- Dungo, 55 Cal.4th 608 (Cal. 2012) (autopsy reports not testimonial; primary purpose descriptive)
- Geier, 41 Cal.4th 555 (Cal. 2007) (DNA reports not testimonial when generated under protocol; independent testifying expert roles)