People v. Vigil.
2024 COA 72. No. 21CA0267. Evidence—Authentication—Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts—Hearsay—Cumulative Errors.
July 11, 2024
Vigil was charged with attempted first degree murder and first degree assault in connection with a shooting at an apartment at which seven people were present. At trial, the primary contested issue was identity. As relevant here, the prosecution called a ballistics expert, who opined that the recovered shell casing was fired from the gun found in the car where the police located Vigil; a DNA analyst, who testified that Vigil’s DNA was on the gun and magazine; and a fingerprint examiner, who testified that fingerprints on the gun matched Vigil’s prints. The police later recovered the gun (with a magazine) used in the crime. At trial, the DNA analyst, who not present when buccal swabs were obtained, relied on the law enforcement agency’s submission letter when testifying that she received buccal swabs taken from Vigil and determined that the DNA profile developed from the swabs matched DNA on the gun and magazine. The fingerprint examiner, relying on information printed on an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) fingerprint card, testified that she compared fingerprints belonging to Vigil with a latent print recovered from the gun and determined that the prints matched (the AFIS database returned a “hit” to “the right ring finger” of a record with a different name than Vigil and a date of birth that matched Vigil’s). Vigil was convicted of attempted second degree murder and second degree assault in connection with a shooting.
On appeal, Vigil argued that the trial court reversibly erred by admitting the testimony of two expert witnesses concerning the results of DNA and fingerprint analyses because they authenticated the analyzed items through inadmissible hearsay testimony. Here, to perform their analyses, the DNA analyst used buccal swabs purportedly containing Vigil’s cellular material, and the fingerprint analyst used a fingerprint card with a name associated with Vigil generated from a fingerprint database. But no one with personal knowledge testified about the source of the known samples. Therefore, the experts’ testimony identifying Vigil as the source of the buccal swabs and printed fingerprints was inadmissible hearsay, and the trial court erred by admitting it. And without the hearsay testimony, the prosecution failed to establish that the items had any connection to Vigil. Further, given the significance that juries place on forensic evidence, and the victim’s inconsistent statements about the shooting, the cumulative errors in admitting the expert testimony prejudiced Vigil’s substantial rights and were not harmless.
The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.