Pendergrass v. State

913 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 2009) · Supreme Court of Indiana · September 24, 2009 · No. 71S03-0808-CR-00445

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the admission of DNA-related documents and testimony did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. The court concluded that testimony from the laboratory supervisor who technically reviewed the testing and from the expert who interpreted the results was sufficient, even though the analyst who performed the original testing did not testify. The court also rejected the defendant's hearsay challenge and affirmed his convictions for two counts of child molesting.

Court
Supreme Court of Indiana
Writing for the Court
Shepard, Chief Justice; Dickson, Justice; Boehm, Justice; Rucker, Justice; Sullivan, Justice
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
September 24, 2009
Docket number
71S03-0808-CR-00445
Procedural posture
Pendergrass petitioned for transfer after the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions for two counts of child molesting and the resulting consecutive sentences. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reviewed the admission of DNA-related exhibits and testimony under the Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules.
Standard of review
The opinion does not expressly state a separate standard of review; it reviewed the constitutional and evidentiary challenges to the admission of the exhibits and testimony for trial-court error.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Richard Pendergrass v. State of Indiana
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sixth amendmentevidencehearsaycriminal procedurefourteenth amendment

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether admission of the DNA laboratory documents and related testimony violated Pendergrass's Sixth Amendment right to confront the analyst who performed the original testing.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted the DNA-related exhibits as hearsay.

Holdings

  1. The admission of the DNA evidence did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Although the Certificate of Analysis was testimonial, the State satisfied the Confrontation Clause by presenting the laboratory supervisor who technically reviewed the analyst's work and the expert who interpreted the test results; the Constitution did not require the State to call every person involved in the testing.
  2. The trial court did not err by admitting Exhibits 1 through 3. A qualified expert may rely on information supplied by others when the information is material to the expert's opinion, even if the supplier does not testify.

Key quotations

It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. (at 706)
We conclude this sufficed for Sixth Amendment purposes. (at 708)
The sources upon which Conneally relied might have been subject to a limiting instruction about the purposes for which they were being tendered, but it was not error to admit them. (at 709)

Factual background

Pendergrass was convicted of molesting his thirteen-year-old daughter, who became pregnant and later had an abortion. The State introduced DNA evidence indicating a 99.9999 percent probability that Pendergrass was the father of the fetus. A laboratory analyst, Daun Powers, performed the original testing and prepared the laboratory documents, but the State called laboratory supervisor Lisa Black, who technically reviewed Powers's work, and DNA expert Michael Conneally, who interpreted the results and performed the paternity analysis.

Procedural history

Pendergrass was charged with two Class A felony counts of child molesting, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to consecutive terms of forty years and twenty-five years. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in Pendergrass v. State, 889 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, 898 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (table), and affirmed the trial court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…