Barnes v. State

1

TAVON JONATHON BARNES v. STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 1717-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland ^[*]

February 28, 2023

Circuit Court for Prince George's County Case No CT200229X

Wells C.J., Shaw, Zarnoch, Robert A. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[*]

PER CURIAM

Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County of first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, Tavon Jonathon Barnes, appellant presents for our review a single issue: whether the court erred in admitting "DNA testing evidence" and related testimony. For the reasons that follow, we shall reverse the judgments of the circuit court and remand the case for a new trial.

On December 18, 2018, Abdul Thomas was shot and killed in an apartment building located at 9170 Edmonston Road in Greenbelt. There were no witnesses to the shooting. In opening statement, the prosecutor contended that Mr. Barnes shot Mr. Thomas, and "in the rapid speed that the gun was firing off," Mr. Barnes "got a nick." The prosecutor further contended that Mr. Barnes subsequently "left his blood" on the door of the building and in a vehicle in which he departed, and that the blood would "come[] back to his DNA."

The State subsequently called Joseph Rose, who worked in the DNA laboratory of the Forensic Science Division of the Prince George's County Police Department. During his testimony, Mr. Rose stated that the "original analyst" who prepared "the report . . . associated with this case" was Mary Sanchez, who is "no longer employed with the DNA laboratory." Mr. Rose stated that "[i]mmediately after the original testing, [he] performed an administrative review of the DNA work," and "a few weeks [before] trial," he "went back and . . . rereviewed the entire case file and performed [a] technical review." Defense counsel subsequently objected to Mr. Rose's testimony, his "references [to] the findings in the report," and the introduction of the report into evidence on the ground, among others, that "it violates [Mr. Barnes's] right to confrontation." The court overruled the objection, admitted the report, and allowed Mr. Rose "to testify based on the report." Mr. Rose subsequently testified regarding the conclusions reached in the report, which were that swabs from the building door, building floor, and vehicle "yielded a complete DNA profile that is consistent with the known DNA profile of" Mr. Barnes, and that a second swab of the building floor "yielded a mixed DNA profile" that contained "a distinguishable major male component . . . consistent with the known DNA profile of" Mr. Barnes. Following trial, Mr. Barnes moved for a new trial on the ground, among others, that the court erred in admitting the report and Mr. Rose's testimony. The court denied the motion.

Mr Barnes contends that the court erred in overruling his objections and denying the motion for new trial, because the "admission of the . . . evidence, . . . report[,] and . . . testimony . . . violated [his] right of confrontation." The State agrees that the "report . . . and analysis and testimony about its conclusions were inadmissible," as do we. The Supreme Court of Maryland (formerly known as the Court of Appeals of Maryland)^[1] has stated that "a statement contained in a scientific report is testimonial if a declarant reasonably would have understood that the primary purpose for the creation of the report was to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution," and if the "report is testimonial under this standard, the report (and/or testimony relaying the information set forth in the report to the trier of fact) is inadmissible . . . unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant previously had the...