Phillips v. StatePhillips v. State
Robert Taylor, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for respondent/cross petitioner.
Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Getty, and Lynne A. Battaglia (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Getty, J.
[REDACTED] This appeal requires us to determine whether a deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA“) analysis conducted in accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (“FBI“) Quality Assurance Standards (“QAS“) qualifies for automatic admissibility under
For the reasons that follow, we hold that the DNA evidence was automatically admissible under
BACKGROUND
The State charged Mr. Phillips with the first-degree murders of his ex-girlfriend, Wynetta Wright, and their eleven-month-old daughter, Jaylin Wright, which took place on May 31, 2011. Wynetta died of a gunshot wound to the head. Her body was found in a park near the Hillcrest Heights Community Center in Prince George‘s County. Jaylin died of hyperthermia as a result of being left in a hot vehicle for an extended period of time. Her body was found in Wynetta‘s car in a parking lot near the park. Mr. Phillips admitted to meeting with Wynetta in the park in the early morning hours of May 31, but denied any involvement in her death or Jaylin‘s death.
The police obtained DNA samples from the crime scenes, the victims, and Mr. Phillips, which were tested in June 2011 by forensic chemist Jessica Charak of the Prince George‘s County Police Department Crime Laboratory (“Prince George‘s County Laboratory” or “Laboratory“). Two samples are relevant to this appeal: a buccal swab2 from Mr. Phillips, and a sample obtained from the steering wheel of Wynetta‘s car. Based on Ms. Charak‘s analysis, she concluded that the steering wheel sample was consistent with Mr. Phillips’ DNA profile and, therefore, he could not be excluded as a contributor to the sample. Ms. Charak found that the steering wheel sample also contained genetic material from Wynetta, Jaylin, and at least two additional unknown contributors. Ms. Charak calculated that “[t]he chances of selecting an unrelated individual from the random population who would be included as a possible contributor to the mixed DNA profile obtained from the evidence sample ... are approximately ... 1 in 2.93 million individuals in the African American population.”
Prior to trial, Mr. Phillips filed a motion in limine to exclude the State‘s DNA evidence and related expert testimony. Mr. Phillips argued that the Prince George‘s County Laboratory‘s methods of analyzing complex, low-template DNA3 samples were not generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community, and thus the evidence was inadmissible under Frye-Reed.
The DNA Admissibility Statute in effect throughout Mr. Phillips’ proceedings provided that DNA evidence “is admissible to prove or disprove the identity of any person,” so long as certain conditions are fulfilled:
(a) Definitions.---
(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)” means the molecules in all cellular forms that contain genetic information in a chemical structure of each individual.
(3) “DNA profile” means an analysis of genetic loci that have [sic] been validated according to standards established by:
(i) The Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM); or
(ii) The DNA Advisory Board of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(b) In general.---A statement from the testing laboratory setting forth that the analysis of genetic loci has been validated by standards established by TWGDAM or the DNA Advisory Board is sufficient to admit a DNA profile under this section.
(c) Purposes.---In any criminal proceeding, the evidence of a DNA profile is admissible to prove or disprove the identity of any person, if the party seeking to introduce the evidence of a DNA profile [complies with specified notice requirements].
The trial court conducted two hearings to determine the admissibility of the DNA evidence. First, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether the Prince George‘s County Laboratory was in compliance with the DNA Admissibility Statute, which would render the evidence automatically admissible without the need for a Frye-Reed hearing. At this initial hearing, the trial court determined that the Laboratory was not in compliance with the Statute, and therefore the DNA evidence was not automatically admissible. Next, the trial court conducted a Frye-Reed hearing to determine whether the Laboratory‘s methods of analysis were generally accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community. The trial court concluded that the Laboratory‘s methods satisfied this standard, and therefore the DNA evidence would be admissible at trial.
Mr. Phillips was tried before a jury beginning on January 14, 2013. The trial court admitted into evidence the analysis of the buccal swab and steering wheel sample, and Ms. Charak testified regarding her conclusions. On January 17, 2013, the jury convicted Mr. Phillips of the first-degree murders of Wynetta and Jaylin, and related charges. On March 22, 2013, the trial court sentenced Mr. Phillips to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Mr. Phillips appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions. Phillips v. State, 226 Md.App. 1, 4, 126 A.3d 739 (2015). Mr. Phillips then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, requesting
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[REDACTED] The trial court‘s determination that the Prince George‘s County Laboratory was not in compliance with the DNA Admissibility Statute, to the extent that this is a factual finding, will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. See Bottini v. Dep‘t of Fin., 450 Md. 177, 187, 147 A.3d 371 (2016) (“We give due regard to the trial court‘s role as fact-finder and will not set aside factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quoting Breeding v. Koste, 443 Md. 15, 27, 115 A.3d 106 (2015))). However, “[w]hen the trial court‘s decision involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the [trial] court‘s conclusions are legally correct.” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Breeding, 443 Md. at 27).
DISCUSSION
Mr. Phillips argues that the trial court erred in admitting the DNA evidence at trial because the State did not establish at the Frye-Reed hearing that the methods used by the Prince George‘s County Laboratory in conducting its analysis are generally accepted as reliable within the relevant scientific community. Before we can address that argument, however, we must determine the threshold issue of whether Mr. Phillips was even entitled to a Frye-Reed hearing regarding the DNA evidence.
[REDACTED] In Maryland, scientific evidence can become admissible either by statute, “if a relevant statute exists,” or by establishing general acceptance in the relevant scientific community under Frye-Reed. Armstead v. State, 342 Md. 38, 54, 673 A.2d 221 (1996). Here, a relevant statute exists---the DNA Admissibility Statute,
A. The Parties’ Contentions and Lower Courts’ Rulings
Mr. Phillips argues that the DNA evidence was not automatically admissible under
The State responds that the DNA evidence was automatically admissible under
The trial court agreed with Mr. Phillips that the Prince George‘s County Laboratory‘s statement of validation was not sufficient for automatic admissibility under the Statute. Because TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board were no longer in existence at the time the Laboratory performed its analysis, the court found that TWGDAM‘s successor, “SWGDAM[,] is now the entity that sets forth the standards for DNA testing.” The trial court then interpreted the Statute by “substituting” SWGDAM for TWGDAM, and held that compliance with SWGDAM guidelines was required for automatic admissibility under
Before the Court of Special Appeals, Mr. Phillips asserted that the trial court‘s ruling on the State‘s noncompliance with
The Court of Special Appeals framed the issue as “decid[ing] what to do with a statute that appears to be obsolete.” Phillips, 226 Md.App. at 3. The court then presented a lengthy discussion of how to deal with obsolete statutes, id. at 8-12, an examination of the legislative history of
B. Mootness
[REDACTED] After we granted certiorari on Mr. Phillips’ petition and the State‘s cross-petition, Mr. Phillips filed a motion to dismiss the State‘s cross-petition as moot. Mr. Phillips argues that this Court need not decide whether the Court of Special Appeals’ interpretation of
[REDACTED] “A case is moot when there is no longer any existing controversy between the parties at the time that the case is before the [C]ourt, or when the [C]ourt can no longer fashion an effective remedy.” Green v. Nassif, 401 Md. 649, 654, 934 A.2d 22 (2007) (quoting In re Kaela C., 394 Md. 432, 452, 906 A.2d 915 (2006)). The Court does not issue advisory opinions, and thus moot cases are generally dismissed “without a decision on the merits.” Id. at 655 (quoting Dep‘t of Human Res., Child Care Admin. v. Roth, 398 Md. 137, 143, 919 A.2d 1217 (2007)).
Here, there is still an existing controversy between the parties. The controversy is whether the DNA evidence qualified for automatic admissibility at Mr. Phillips’ trial pursuant to the previous version of
Additionally, this Court can fashion an effective remedy by deciding the proper interpretation of the previous version of the Statute, and either affirming Mr. Phillips’ convictions or reversing them and remanding the case for a new trial (if we were to also decide that the DNA evidence was not otherwise admissible, and that any error in admitting it was not harmless).
Because there is still an existing controversy between the parties, and the Court can fashion an effective remedy, we hold that the State‘s cross-petition, regarding the proper interpretation of
C. Compliance with CJP § 10-915
Next, we address the merits of the State‘s contention that the lower courts erred in determining that the DNA evidence introduced against Mr. Phillips did not meet the requirements for automatic admissibility under the DNA Admissibility Stat- ute. As set out above,
The trial court found as a matter of fact, and the Court of Special Appeals agreed, that TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board were no longer in existence when the Prince George‘s County Laboratory performed its analysis in June 2011. See Phillips, 226 Md.App. at 8, 15. The trial court also found as a matter of fact, and the Court of Special Appeals agreed, that the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, or SWGDAM, is the successor entity to TWGDAM. Id. at 14. Then, after examining the legislative history of the DNA Admissibility Statute, the Court of Special Appeals determined “that the legislature intended to create a statute that would track cutting-edge DNA science and ensure automatic admissibility only if the DNA techniques complied with the standards promulgated by the most rigorous standards-setting body available.” Id. Next, the Court of Special Appeals compared SWGDAM guidelines for DNA testing to the QAS, just as the trial court had done. Id. The intermediate appellate court noted that while SWGDAM guidelines represent “rigorous standards for cutting-edge DNA technology,” id. at 15, the QAS are simply “older protocols that are ‘good enough.‘” Id. at 16. The Court of Special Appeals then concluded (as had the trial court) that while a DNA analysis conducted in accordance with SWGDAM guidelines would be sufficient for automatic admissibility under the Statute, one that was conducted in accordance with the QAS was not. Id. at 15-16. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals held that the Laboratory‘s statement of validation was not sufficient under
The arguments from both Mr. Phillips and the State, as well as the conclusions of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court, appear to be premised on a misunderstanding of the evolution of TWGDAM, SWGDAM, the DNA Advisory Board, and the QAS, and the relationship between these entities and the DNA Admissibility Statute. In order to resolve this confusion, we will examine the interrelated histories of these standards-setting bodies, and view them in the context of the legislative history of the DNA Admissibility Statute. In doing so, we begin by setting forth this Court‘s well-established rules of statutory construction.
[REDACTED] This Court provides judicial deference to the policy decisions enacted into law by the General Assembly. We assume that the legislature‘s intent is expressed in the statutory language and thus our statutory interpretation focuses primarily on the language of the statute to determine the purpose and intent of the General Assembly.
We begin our analysis by first looking to the normal, plain meaning of the language
Douglas v. State, 423 Md. 156, 178, 31 A.3d 250 (2011) (quoting Evans v. State, 420 Md. 391, 400, 23 A.3d 223 (2011)).
The General Assembly enacted
The General Assembly again sought to eliminate the need for Frye-Reed hearings for every piece of DNA evidence by amending the Statute to reflect the advancements that had occurred in the field of DNA analysis. Id. Initially, the legislature proposed to do this by simply inserting the PCR method into the Statute alongside the RFLP method, such that an analysis conducted utilizing either method would qualify for automatic admissibility. See House Bill 414-First Reading, 1997 Leg., 411th Sess. (Md. Jan. 24, 1997) (“‘DNA profile’ means an analysis that utilizes the restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis OR POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION of DNA resulting in the identification of an individual‘s [patterned] chemical structure of genetic information.” (capitalization in original to show addition to existing law) (brackets in original to show deletion from existing law)). Before the bill was passed, however, it was amended to define “DNA profile” as “an analysis of genetic loci that have [sic] been validated according to standards established by ... (I) ... TWGDAM; or (II) The DNA Advisory Board.” House Bill 414, 1997 Leg., 411th Sess. (Md. 1997). Additionally, a statement from the testing laboratory that the analysis had been validated accordingly would be sufficient for automatic admissibility. Id.
Thus, rather than replace the RFLP method with PCR or any other specified method of analysis, the General Assembly chose to delegate the power to approve new DNA analysis techniques to two national standards-setting bodies: TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board. While the Bill File for House Bill 414 (1997) does not expressly state the reasoning behind these amendments, we infer that, given the Statute‘s history, legislators
TWGDAM was a group of private and public sector forensic scientists convened by the FBI in 1988 to establish guidelines for DNA testing in forensic laboratories throughout the country. Dep‘t Legis. Servs., Fiscal and Policy Note (Revised), Senate Bill 637, at 2 (2016 Session).8 These “guidelines became de facto standards and were recognized by courts as minimum requirements for a quality forensic DNA analysis program.” SWGDAM, About Us.9
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the creation of the DNA Advisory Board to develop and revise, as appropriate, “recommended standards for quality assurance, including standards for testing the proficiency of forensic laboratories, and forensic analysts, in conducting analyses of DNA.”
Pursuant to this legislation, the FBI Director established the DNA Advisory Board, which began developing standards for DNA testing in 1995. SWGDAM, History & Evolution of DNA QA Standards 19 (2015).10 The DNA Advisory Board issued two sets of standards for forensics laboratories to follow. In July 1998, the Board issued the Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories, effective October 1, 1998.11 Id. at 20. In April 1999, the Board issued the Quality Assurance Standards for Convicted Offender DNA Databasing Laboratories, effective April 1, 1999.12 Id. Collec- tively, these two documents are known as the FBI‘s Quality Assurance Standards, or the QAS.
Unfortunately, the General Assembly‘s attempt to keep the law on pace with scientific advancements encountered unforeseen complications. In 1999, TWGDAM was renamed the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, or “SWGDAM.” SWGDAM, History & Evolution
Recognizing this discrepancy in the statutory language, the General Assembly twice attempted to amend
In 2006, House Bill 274 proposed to amend the DNA Admissibility Statute by replacing both of the named entities---TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board---with the QAS. House Bill 274, 2006 Leg., 421st Sess. (Md. 2006). “DNA profile” would be defined as “an analysis of genetic loci that have [sic] been validated according to national quality assurance standards issued by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Id. Additionally, DNA evidence would remain automatically admissible if the analysis had “been validated according to standards issued by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Id.
The Fiscal and Policy Note accompanying House Bill 274 notes that “[t]he Department of State Police advises that the changes are technical in nature and do not change the standards for admissibility in court.” Dep‘t Legis. Servs., Fiscal and Policy Note, House Bill 274, at 2 (2006 Session).14 The Office of the Public Defender (“OPD“) opposed the Bill, and proposed that SWGDAM, rather than the QAS, should replace TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board in the Statute. OPD, Position on Proposed Legislation---House Bill 274 (Feb. 15, 2006). OPD explained that “[t]he SWGDAM entity is expected to exist for the foreseeable future, reflects the views of the national forensic science community as opposed to only those of the Director of the FBI and is the only logical set of guidelines on which to base this legislation.” Id. The Maryland State Bar Association (“MSBA“) also opposed the Bill, and similarly stated that “while SWGDAM communicates among its members and updates its scientific findings regularly, the FBI does not do so. To subject DNA evidence to standards approved in 1998 and 1999 by the FBI ignores scientific developments which have been discovered since that time.” MSBA, Position on House Bill 274 (Feb. 22, 2006). The Bill passed the House and received a hearing in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, but no further action was taken.
Meanwhile, the QAS issued by the DNA Advisory Board in 1998 and 1999 remained in force as the minimum requirements for DNA testing in forensics laboratories throughout the country. The DNA Identification Act requires all DNA laboratories that are federally funded or operated, or participate in the National DNA Index System, to demonstrate compliance with the QAS. FBI, Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).16 The FBI monitors laboratories’ compliance with the QAS through its annual audit process. Every other year, forensics laboratories must undergo an external audit to ensure that their procedures comply with the QAS. During in-between years, the laboratories are permitted to undertake an internal audit, where the laboratories’ own scientists evaluate their procedures for compliance with the QAS. At the pre-Frye-Reed hearing in this case, Ms. Charak testified that the National Forensic Science Technology Center performed an external audit on the Prince George‘s County Laboratory in July 2010, and determined that the Laboratory was in compliance with the QAS.
Also during this time, SWGDAM continued its duty of periodically recommending revisions to the QAS to reflect scientific and technological advancements in DNA testing. SWGDAM, About Us, supra. In 2007, SWGDAM submitted to the FBI Director its recommendation for substantial revisions to the QAS. The FBI Director adopted these recommendations and issued the first revised QAS in October 2008, with an effective date of July 1, 2009.17 SWGDAM, History & Evolution of DNA QA Standards, supra at 31. In 2011, SWGDAM submitted its recommendation for additional, minor revisions to the QAS, which were approved by the FBI Director with an effective date of September 1, 2011. Id. at 38-39. Thus, the 2007 version of the QAS were the relevant standards when the Prince George‘s County Laboratory performed its analysis in this case (in June 2011), and when it was audited by the National Forensic Science Technology Center (in July 2010).
[REDACTED] This history makes pellucid that the lower courts were correct in finding that TWGDAM and the DNA Advisory Board did not exist under those names at the time the Prince George‘s County Laboratory received its statement of validation, or at the time the analysis in this case was performed. However, that finding is not dispositive of whether the Laboratory‘s analysis satisfied the requirement of
Although the QAS are not explicitly mentioned in the DNA Admissibility Statute (before the 2016 amendments), they are literally “standards established by ... the DNA Advisory Board.” As described above, the QAS are two sets of standards for DNA testing and databasing promulgated by the DNA Advisory Board in 1998 and 1999, respectively. And while the FBI Director revised the QAS in 2007 at the recommendation of SWGDAM, we do not believe that these subsequent revisions, by an entity not explicitly named in the statute, transform the 2007 QAS into something other than “standards established by ... the DNA Advisory Board.”
Furthermore, we view the General Assembly‘s decision not to amend the Statute between 2000 and 2015, despite multiple proposals, as an indication that legislators did not view the Statute as “obsolete” or ineffective. To the contrary, this inaction illustrates that the previous version of the Statute continued to serve its purpose of allowing for the automatic admissibility of DNA evidence without the need for Frye-Reed hearings. It was not until the Court of Special Appeals interpreted the Statute as “obsolete” that the General Assembly decided to amend the Statute for clarification. The 2016 amendments made clear that, although the standards-setting bodies named in the Statute no longer exist under those names, the standards they promulgated remain in effect.
Therefore, we hold that the Prince George‘s County Laboratory‘s statement of validation, that the DNA analysis in this case was “determined by procedures which have been validated according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories,” satisfies the requirement of
D. Adequacy of the QAS
[REDACTED] Alternatively, Mr. Phillips argues that even if compliance with the QAS is sufficient for automatic admissibility under
At the pre-Frye-Reed hearing, Ms. Charak---testifying for the State---and Dr. Charlotte Word---testifying for Mr. Phillips---generally agreed that the QAS do not specifically address complex, low-template DNA. Dr. Word testified that the QAS do not distinguish between “two-person mixture[s], three-person mixtures, four-person mixtures, good quality DNA, [or] low quality DNA.” Ms. Charak, when asked if she was “aware of a standard that has been generally accepted within the scientific community for reliably interpreting complex mixtures of low template DNA,” responded, “A standard? There is no such standard.” Additionally, the trial court found that there were SWGDAM guidelines “in place as of 2009” that dealt with complex DNA mixtures, but these guidelines had not yet been adopted by the FBI Director and incorporated into the QAS. The trial court also found that the Prince George‘s County Laboratory was not following the SWGDAM guidelines, and that it did “not have specific protocols as it relates to the complex mixtures that are addressed in this case.”
The trial court‘s findings that the QAS did not address complex, low-template
In essence, Mr. Phillips argues that mere compliance with the DNA Admissibility Statute is not good enough for automatic admissibility when the DNA analysis at issue is not covered by any applicable standards. However, the legislative history detailed above and the recent amendments to the Statute make clear that
Despite these objections, the General Assembly passed and Governor Hogan signed Senate Bill 637, which made explicit that compliance with the QAS is sufficient for the automatic admissibility of DNA evidence. See 2016 Md. Laws, ch. 570. The current Statute does not mention SWGDAM. We view this as an indication that
CONCLUSION
We hold that the statement of validation that accompanied the Prince George‘s County Laboratory‘s analysis of the DNA evidence introduced against Mr. Phillips satisfied the requirement of
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.