P. v. Arauz
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence may or may not be testimonial under Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. It depends on the circumstances. Here we hold that a DNA report is not testimonial because defendant was not a suspect when the report was produced.
A jury found Roberto Arauz guilty of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 1), forcible sodomy (§ 286, subd. (c)(2), count 2) and forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2), count 3).[1] The jury also found true as to each count that Arauz inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7) and committed the offenses during the commission of a first degree burglary (§ 667.61, subds. (a), (b) & (d)(4)).
On appeal, Arauz contends that the DNA evidence admitted in this case constitutes testimonial hearsay. Thus, he argues its admission violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Confrontation Clause). We affirm.
Comments on P. v. Arauz