Barney

I. Introduction

These two appeals challenge the admissibility of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis evidence. The primary claim is that DNA analysis is a new scientific technique which does not meet the test of general acceptance prescribed by People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 24 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] and Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 Fed. 1013 . We conclude that one element of current DNA analysis—the determination of the statistical significance of a match between a defendant’s DNA and the DNA in bodily material found at the crime scene—does not satisfy the Kelly-Frye test, but that in both appeals the error in admitting the DNA evidence was harmless.

The two cases are factually unrelated. They were tried separately by two different judges in Alameda County and have been briefed separately. However, we have consolidated them for decision because there is substantial identity of issues presented and underlying scientific principles.

II. Facts and Procedure

A. People v. Howard

The victim in Howard, Octavia Matthews, was found on the floor of her home with a rope wrapped around her neck, bleeding from multiple head wounds. She later died…