Nonhuman DNA Criminal Cases

 
 

 

While the use of human DNA in criminal cases is widespread, nonhuman DNA found at a crime scene can be also be important in helping to solve a case. Below are decisions where plant DNA, animal DNA and viral DNA have been found to be admissible in criminal cases. If you know of any recent decisions regarding nonhuman DNA in criminal cases please contact us so we can include copies of the rulings here.

  1. State v. Bogan, 183 Ariz. 506, 905 P.2d 515 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, Apr 11, 1995) (NO. 1CA-CR93-0453) (PCR based RAPD technology for plant DNA ruled admissible in a murder case) bogan.PDF
  2. U.S. v. Boswell, --- F.3d ----, 2001 WL 1223128 (8th Cir.(Iowa), Oct 16, 2001) (NO. 00-4005) (PCR testing on swine DNA ruled admissible in a criminal case) boswell.PDF
  3. State v. Schmidt, 97-249 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/29/97), 699 So.2d 448 (La.App. 3 Cir., Jul 29, 1997) (NO. K97-249)(DNA testing of HIV virus ruled admissible in an attempted murder case) schmidt.PDF
  4. State v. Schmidt, 99-1412 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/26/00), 771 So.2d 131 (La.App. 3 Cir., Jul 26, 2000) (NO. 99-1412) )(DNA testing of HIV virus ruled admissible in an attempted murder case) schmidt.PDF
  5. Beamish v. Her Majesty The Queen, In the Supreme Court-Appeal Division for the Province of Prince Edward Island, Docket # AD-0693 & 7/22/99 (DNA testing of cat hair ruled admissible in a murder case) beamish.PDF
  6. State v. Demers , 167 Vt. 349, 707 A.2d 276 (Vt., Dec 26, 1997) (NO. 96-452)(Results from DNA testing of a deer used to obtain a search warrant) deamers.PDF
  7. Washington v. Tuilefano & Lealuaialii , Superior Court of Washington for King County, No. 97-1-01391-3SEA & 96-1-08245-9SEA, 1/5/98 (dog DNA testing and canine database ruled admissible in a double homicide trial). tuilefano.PDF
  8. On appeal the Washington court ruled that it was error to allow the statistics on the dog DNA.  lealuaialii.PDF
  9. California v. Westerfield, Superior Court of California for San Diego County, 7/1/02 (mtDNA testing of dog hairs ruled not novel and admissible). westerfield.PDF
  10. Huck v. Florida , District of Appeals of Florida, 5 th District, No. 5D03-1906, July 16, 2004. (mtDNA testing of dog hairs used in a murder case – no admissibility issue). huck.PDF
  11. Illinois v. Michael Slover, Jr., et al, App. Ct. Illinois, 4th District, NO. 4-02-0892,  The Court affirmed an order releasing cat hairs for DNA testing to the doctor who performed DNA testing on canine hairs in the defendants' murder case. Slover.pdf
  12. People v. Sutherland, Illinois Supreme Court, # 99047, 9/21/06, Admissibility of the mtDNA evidence was not at issue on appeal but the trial court ruled it was admissible pursuant to Frye. Sutherland.PDF
  13. Com. v. Treiber, 582 Pa. 646, 874 A.2d 26 Pa.,2005, Dog DNA from hair was used against the defendant in the arson/murder of his daughter. Treiber.PDF
  14. Stroud v. Indiana, Indiana Supreme Court, No. 71S00-0011-DP-00642, 5/25/04, an expert testified that dog DNA from feces found on a pair of shoes and the feces from the ground at the scene of a triple murder were likely from the same animal. Stroud.PDF