Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
If you are charged with a serious crime decades after it allegedly occurred, you may wonder how law enforcement identified you. In Arizona, courts allow DNA hits from government databases to be used in connecting people to cold cases. While this evidence can be robust, it also raises concerns about prejudice, assumptions, and whether it implies a history of criminal activity. In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that DNA evidence from a database may be introduced at trial if it is relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
In State v. Vergara, the person on trial was charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. These charges stemmed from an incident that took place nearly 30 years before law enforcement made an arrest. The charges came after a DNA profile submitted to a database produced a match. At trial, the defense objected to the use of any testimony suggesting the DNA came from a criminal database, arguing that it implied a prior record and prejudiced the jury. The trial court allowed the testimony, and the appeals court upheld that decision.
DNA Hits Can Be Used to Explain How Police Identify Suspects
The appeals court emphasized that prosecutors may explain how law enforcement came to suspect someone, especially when a long time has passed since the alleged offense. In this case, the match between DNA evidence from the original crime scene and a DNA profile in a database helped explain the investigative process. The court ruled that the testimony helped rebut the theory that officers had unfairly targeted the wrong person without justification.
In support of its decision, the court cited cases that allowed similar evidence to establish how suspects were identified. The ruling clarified that referencing a DNA hit does not automatically violate your rights, especially if the connection is relevant and not overly emotional or misleading.
Claims of Unfair Prejudice Under Rule 403 Must Show More Than Harmful Impact
Arizona Rule of Evidence 403 allows judges to exclude relevant evidence if its value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The appeals court reiterated that evidence is not unfairly prejudicial just because it is damaging. It becomes unfair when it suggests a verdict based on emotion, sympathy, or assumptions that are not supported by fact.
In the trial court, a criminalist explained that a DNA report was reviewed and submitted to a database, resulting in a profile match. The defense argued this created a harmful inference that the person on trial had a prior criminal record. The court disagreed. It held that the testimony did not reference any previous charges or convictions and did not create the kind of emotional reaction that Rule 403 aims to prevent.
Statute of Limitations Arguments Must Be Clearly Supported by Law
Another issue raised on appeal was whether the case should have been dismissed as time-barred. The individual on trial argued that too much time had passed between the offense and the charges being filed. However, the court found no error in allowing the prosecution to proceed. Certain felony charges, including sexual assault, may have extended or tolled statutes of limitations under Arizona law, especially when DNA evidence is involved.
This ruling sends a message that late-filed charges may still move forward when new forensic technology or evidence brings a case back into focus. While that reality poses a challenge for the defense, it also makes it more important to challenge evidence properly, preserve objections at trial, and work with an attorney who understands the rules of admissibility.
Work With an Arizona Attorney Who Understands Prejudice and Procedure
If you are facing charges tied to old accusations or DNA evidence, you need a defense attorney who can push back against assumptions and expose weak points in the prosecution’s case. References to a database hit may seem neutral, but jurors often assume it implies a criminal history. You deserve a strategy that makes these issues clear and forces the state to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Call James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499 to schedule a free consultation. Get answers, protect your rights, and work with an Arizona criminal defense attorney who understands how to challenge every detail in the courtroom.