State v. Sheehan

273 P.3d 417 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The victim was attacked and seriously injured in her house. The victim claimed that her attacker was a co-worker whom she had invited into her house earlier that night and who was in her house at the time of the attack. The only evidence that tied D to the scene of the attack was part of a bloody palm print found on a pillowcase from the victim's bed. D filed a motion requesting a hearing pursuant to Rimmasch to challenge the reliability and admissibility of the State's print evidence. D attempted to present the testimony of Dr. Simon A. Cole to dispute the reliability of P's proposed print evidence. The court concluded that D was not entitled to a Rimmasch hearing to challenge the admissibility of P's print evidence. The court refused to allow Dr. Cole to testify at the hearing and did not allow the defense to make a record of Dr. Cole's testimony, even though Dr. Cole had traveled from California to attend the hearing. The court indicated that it might allow Dr. Cole to testify at trial. D then filed a motion to allow Cole’s testimony at trial. The court held that Dr. Cole could not testify. Instead, D could cross-examine P's expert on whether mistakes can be made in fingerprint analysis. D argued that he was 'entitled to under Rule 702 to come in and say, well, that's just simply not true; that's simply not accurate.' During trial with the jury excused, D proffered evidence that would have been introduced during cross-examination had the court allowed it. The evidence showed the subjectivity inherent in fingerprint analysis and that a zero error rate was not scientifically plausible. The evidence also gave examples of misidentification and that rule 803(18) allowed admission of the reports into evidence. Those motions were denied. D was only allowed to cross-examine to determine if P’s experts were aware of certain reports. P also presented evidence that tied D to the scene of the crime and that when his residence was searched, he possessed the victim’s dress and two pairs of underwear. D was found guilty and appealed.