“[E]very contact leaves a trace.” The advent of touch DNA testing has stretched this maxim of forensic science to its limits. Human beings shed tens of thousands of skin cells every day. Every time an individual makes contact with a surface or an object, the potential for skin cell transfer exists. Modern science enables forensic analysts to test touch DNA samples using methods similar to those employed to test traditional sources of DNA evidence, such as blood and saliva. However, because of reliability concerns regarding the analysis of touch DNA samples, inculpatory touch DNA evidence has garnered little attention, much less support, from the court system.
In 2012, North Carolina became one of the first states to address the sufficiency of touch DNA evidence to carry a case to a jury. Mark Bradley Carver was convicted of first-degree murder after a laboratory test revealed that a touch DNA sample from the exterior of the victim’s vehicle matched his touch DNA profile. The North Carolina Court of Appeals, over a vigorous dissent, held that this evidence was sufficient to withstand Mr. Carver’s motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the decision per curiam.
While the threshold admissibility of touch DNA evidence is questionable at best, this important question is not within the scope of this Note. Rather, because there was no argument on appeal about the trial court’s admission of testimony concerning touch DNA, the critical issue becomes whether touch DNA evidence is sufficient to identify the perpetrator, an essential element of any crime.
This Note does not suggest that North Carolina trial courts should never admit touch DNA evidence. Nor does it maintain that North Carolina appellate courts should never consider this type of evidence when reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence. Instead, this Note argues that because of the significant reliability concerns regarding touch DNA testing, relying on touch DNA evidence as the primary basis for upholding a trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss, with very little treatment of touch DNA evidence by the courts, sets an unwise precedent. Accordingly, this Note argues that the North Carolina Supreme Court should overturn or significantly circumscribe the Carver decision.
