2022KW1066 Nonprecedential Stay lifted; writ granted Processed

State Of Louisiana v. B.J. McElveen

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed September 29, 2022

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

In re Tobler 108 So. 3d 1159
State v. Oliphant 127 So. 3d 91
State v. Grimes 109 So. 3d 1007
State v. Moore 123 So. 3d 1216

Opinion text

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2022 KW 1066

VERSUS

B. J. MCELVEEN SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No. 09- 18- 0487.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., GUIDRY AND WOLFE, JJ.

STAY LIFTED; WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s ruling
limiting testimony from the State' s DNA expert and excluding the
lab reports is reversed. No error under the Confrontation Clause
occurs when a DNA expert testifies that in his or her opinion

the DNA profile developed from a sample taken from defendant
matches the DNA profile developed by other, non - testifying
technicians from biological samples taken from the evidence.

State v. Bolden, 2011- 2435 ( La. 10/ 26/ 12), 108 So. 3d 1159, 1161-
62 ( per curiam). cf. State v. Oliphant, 2013- 273 ( La. App. 3rd
Cir. 11/ 20/ 13), 127 So. 3d 91 ( the testimony of an alternate

crime lab employee regarding results of DNA analysis, rather

than employee who actually performed the analysis, did not

violate the defendant' s confrontation rights. The crime lab
employee who actually performed the analysis was on maternity
leave and the testifying employee was recognized as an expert in
DNA analysis and admittedly familiar with the protocols and

procedures required of the analysis). Further, the Louisiana
State Police Crime Laboratory scientific analysis reports are

admissible. Even if forensic DNA reports are admitted in
evidence without in -court testimony of the scientist/ analyst who

either signed the certification or performed or observed the
test reported in the certification, generally, there is no Sixth
Amendment Confrontation Clause violation because the reports are

not testimonial. State v. Grimes, 2011- 0984 ( La. App. 4th Cir.
2/ 20/ 13), 109 So. 3d 1007, writ denied, 2013- 0625 ( La. 10/ 11/ 13),
123 So. 3d 1216 ( citing Williams v. Illinois, 567 U. S. 50, 132
S. Ct. 2221, 183 L. Ed. 2d 89 ( 2012)).

VGW
JMG
EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

40
Y
J_
CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT

p. 2