People v. Henderson

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 769·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 487·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3715·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2905
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 2003E029887California6,740 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gaut, J.

1. Introduction

Defendant Marcus Lee Henderson appeals from a judgment convicting him of several violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder, and rape against several different victims. On appeal, defendant raises the following claims: insufficient evidence supported his convictions for murder and attempted murder; the trial court erred in admitting scientific evidence; the court erred in instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 17.41.1; and the court erred in sentencing defendant by imposing a parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45 and calculating the custody credits.

In regards to the scientific evidence issue, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that capillary electrophoresis, the procedure used for analyzing the amplified deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fragments in this case, has gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. We also conclude that the added complication of analyzing a multiple source DNA sample did not affect the admissibility of the evidence, but, instead, was a consideration for the jury in weighing the evidence and determining the credibility and accuracy of the DNA test results.

As to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.