State v. Sheehan

273 P.3d 417 (2012)

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.