P. v. Smith
Harold Eugene Smith appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction by a jury of three counts (1, 4, and 5)[1] of forcible rape committed against three victims on separate occasions. (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2))[2] As to each count, the jury found true allegations that (1) appellant had committed the offense during the commission of a burglary ( 667.61, subd. (e)(2)), and (2) appellant was convicted in the present case of committing rape by force against more than one victim. (Id., subd. (e)(5).) In addition, as to each of counts 1 and 4, the jury found true an allegation that appellant had used a deadly weapon or firearm in the commission of the offense within the meaning of section 12022.3, subdivision (a). The trial court found true one prior serious felony conviction. ( 667, subd. (a)(1).) Appellant was identified as a suspect through a search of a database that contained his DNA profile. The DNA profile taken from the crime scene samples matched appellant's DNA profile. A match made by searching a DNA database is referred to as a "cold hit." Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence relating to the statistical significance of the cold hit match. Court conclude that appellant failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he did not make an offer of proof of its statistical significance. Court modify the judgment to correct sentencing errors and affirm the judgment as modified.
Comments on P. v. Smith