Stevey

Defendant Eddie Duane Stevey, convicted of various sex crimes against his 16-year-old victim, contends the interpretation of the *1404 mixed DNA samples and the methodology used to project the probability of a DNA match constitute “new scientific technique[s]” requiring an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate they are generally accepted in the scientific community. (People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) In fact, it has been over 20 years since the first California appellate court concluded that the use of DNA for forensic purposes was generally accepted within the scientific community, and there has been a steady stream of cases finding general acceptance of an ever-increasing number of kits and improved methodologies in collecting and analyzing DNA evidence. (E.g., People v. Axell (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 836, 842 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 411 ] (Axell); People v. Hill (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 48, 56 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ] (Hill); People v. Jackson (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 313, 325 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 474 ] (Jackson).)

Here, the prosecution offered no new science, no breakthrough technology, and no untested kits or tests. No defense expert…