*1 with a attorney to could not Kinard’s why they provide At recordable satisfaction. the same time Kinard mortgage Fleet, to obtain a recordable satisfaction from attempting threatening report Fleet’s Charleston office was Kinard’s the Bar the title attorney to Association and to insurance because he had to forward the company proper been unable documents to the office. the time of some By Charleston months after Kinard had offthe he twenty-one paid mortgage, still had not mortgage. received recordable satisfaction of circumstances, Under these we cannot the trial court say erred Kinard the full amount of the al- awarding penalty lowed Section 29-3-320. the order of the trial court
Accordingly, Cureton, Shaw STATE, Respondent DINKINS, Appellant. v. Albert Alexander *2 Daniel T. Atty. Stacey Ap- Chief Officeof Columbia,
pellate Defense, appellant. for Medlock, T. Attorney General Travis Deputy Atty. Chief Zelenka, Donald Atty. Gen. J. Gen. William K. Deputy Moore, Kolb, Jr., Sumter, Columbia; and Sol. Wade S. re- for spondent. 5, 1994.
Heard Oct. 24, 1995.
Decided July Justice:
Moore, Appellant was convicted of criminal sexual con- first-degree duct, first-degree burglary, robbery and armed and received life, consecutive thirty years, years, sentences of and ten re- spectively. He the admission of appeals (DNA) deoxyribonucleic statistics for acid test results. af- firm.
FACTS victim, a woman, was seventy-eight-year-old sexually assaulted in her bedroom. She was unable to her at- identify tacker because he had worn a “protective covering” over his face. she described a medallion worn her at- by tacker which similar to one owned and she identified her attacker as having speech.” “black black. Police were identify unable to from a partial fingerprint lifted from a window screen. (SLED)
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division per- formed analysis on semon taken from the samples bed sheets. The DNA test showed match with appellant’s DNA. Sled Steve Lambert testified the probability of in an unrelated in- pattern finding appellant’s particular in 2.9 in South Carolina is one bil- randomly dividual selected in the white and one 4.2 billion lion the black an in camera ruled the statis- hearing, tical evidence admissible.
ISSUE admitting Did the trial err statistics?
DISCUSSION in the chro- DNA is the double-strand molecule found long, the genetic mosomes carried cell nuclei.1 DNA contains that, all It is well ex- living organisms. accepted for blueprint twins, each individual has a cept unique genetic for identical A known as process autoradiography code or DNA an autorads or bands of DNA. DNA yields x-ray showing *3 exam- match occurs when the three to five autorads which are person ined are determined to be alike. match means the sample is a contributor of the potential tested match, is as- significance its statistical determining have data- certained. Forensic DNA laboratories the with which a frequency particular bases which establish pop- in the relevant The relevant appears population. autorad the con- ulation determined to the race of according is the fre- The rule is then used to determine product tributor. in entire DNA occurs the rele- print with which the quency rule, the each autorad’s fre- product vant Under in the total together resulting quency print multiplied randomly would sample print that the tested DNA probability Wedlock, in the relevant “DNA Goes appear population.2 Round,” Lawyer, March/April Round and controversy surrounding 1993. Most of the the rule. product statistics involves frequency (1990) (discussion Ford, v. of See State 301 S.C. DNA). popu percent of the relevant example, if one autorad is found percent population, in ten of the relevant lation and another autorad is found rule, match of two DNA applying product probability of a coincidental the the prints .10 x .50. is 5% or of the statistics first address the SCRCrimP, is identical to 24(a), Rule which
under
Evidence. Both
“If
provide:
Federal Rules
Rule
of
technical,
knowledge will assist
scientific,
specialized
or other
the evidence or to determine a
the trier of fact to understand
as an
issue,
qualified
expert by knowledge,
fact in
a witness
education,
thereto in
skill,
may testify
experience, training,
otherwise.”3
the form of an
opinion
cross-examination,presentation
contrary
“[Vigorous
on the
evidence,
proof
and careful instruction
burden
means of
appropriate
attacking
are the traditional and
Daubert,
evidence.”
U.S. at
shaky but admissible
In this
the DNA
sta
S.Ct. at 2798.
determining
assist the
whether
jury
tistics
allowed to make its own de
jury
the attacker. The
should be
it believes the statistics are reliable.
termination as to whether
and the
experts
is free to believe or disbelieve
jury
Therefore, we hold DNA
sta
statistics.
results,
as with
test
they
tistics are admissible.
Ford,
attack for
subject
supra.
are
the trial
erred in ad
Here,
contends
testimony
statistics
because its
mitting
probability
under
outweighs
probative
effect
value
prejudicial
Alexander,
377, 401
Ap
of one 2.9
pellant argues
probability figure
astronomical
jury may
per
him because the
have
unfairly prejudiced
billion
prejudice,
ceived this statistic as infallible. This
how
potential
ever,
does not mandate exclusion.
did not cross-ex
why
amine Lambert nor
his own
to show
present
Therefore,
statistics are unreliable or flawed.4
we find
value of the evi
finding
did not err
conclusion,
dence
unfair
effect.
outweighed any
prejudicial
*4
3
Ford, supra,
DNA test results admissible under States v.
we held
States,
(2d)
Jones,
Frye
(1979),
v. United
723,
and
54
259 S.E.
(1923), subject
App.
to attack for
D.C.
Chandler, C.J., Waller, Toal and Finney, J., concurs in separate opinion.
Finney, Justice, concurring:
I respectfully out, concur. As the majority opinion points ap- pellant simply challenged the expert’s statistical conclusion on the ground its prejudicial impact outweighed value, but neither cross-examined the nor presented one of his own to challenge reliability methodology the evidence. theWith understanding only that we decide that DNA population frequency statistics may be admissible criminal I concur.
UNISUN INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a American Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent v. FIRST SOUTHERN COM INSURANCE PANY, Petitioner. only Many bases based on DNA of two South hundred blacks in Carolina. larger contend databases need sample, to be taken from a much such e.g. Futrell, thousand. as two three App. 112 N.C.