State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1725

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Latrone Deshone Bailey,
Appellant.

Filed November 25, 2019
Affirmed
Florey, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-17-19900

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Ap pellate Public Defender, Suzanne M. Senecal -Hill,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Smith, Tracy
M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FLOREY, Judge
On appeal from the judgment of conviction for unl awful possession of a firearm,
appellant argues that the district cou rt erred in admitting the state’ s expert -witness

2
testimony because the state failed to establish the foundational reliability of the expert ’s
“major mixture” DNA testimony. Because the district court acted within its discretion in
admitting expert testimony, we affirm.
FACTS
In April 2017, Minneapolis police observed a group of men interfering with traffic.
When officers attempted to make contact with the group, the men fled. One man, later
identified as appellant Latrone Deshone Bailey, ran through several backyards before being
apprehended. The officers searched the yards through which Bailey and the other men had
run and discovered four loaded firearms. The grass in the yards was wet, but the firearms
were dry. The firearms were swabbed for DNA testing. One of the guns, a Smith &
Wesson .40 caliber, had an identifiable DNA profile of three or more contributors. The
“major profile” was identified as a mixture of two or more contr ibutors, which excluded
“99.9999999% of the general population.” Neither Bailey nor “an identified accomplice
on scene” could be excluded as contributors to the major profile.
In August 2017, Bailey was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a
firearm in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2016).1 Bailey moved to suppress
the DNA -analysis results, arguing that they lacked foundational reliability and that the
“major mixture” analysis was a novel scientific theory. At an omnibus hearing, the district
court heard arguments from both Bailey and the state. The district court also reviewed
transcripts of expert testimony presented by the parties. The district court concluded that

1 The complaint was later amended to add an additional count for being a felon in
possession, filed after July 16, 2018. Bailey was acquitted of this additional charge.

3
the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BC A) “laboratory is well recognized and is in
compliance,” and that their “methods are considered reliable.” The district court noted that
the BCA follows “FBI interpretation guidelines” and that “mixture interpretation
conclusions or data is accepted in th e scientific community.” The district court reasoned
that the “major mixture” analysis is not “sufficiently separate such that we need a Frye -
Mack hearing ,” but rather a topic that “would certainly be valid for detailed cross -
examination to cover.” The d istrict court concluded that “mixture DNA is very well
recognized” and that pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702, “there is foundational
reliability for this kind of expert testimony.” Accordingly, the district court denied Bailey’s
motion to suppress the DNA-analysis result.
The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial, and Bailey was convicted of one count
of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Bailey
to a presumptive prison sentence of 60 months. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may
testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. The
opinion must have foundational reliability. In addition, if the
opinion or evidence inv olves novel scientific theory, the
proponent must establish that the underlying scientific
evidence is generally accepted in the relevant scientific
community.

4
“Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not
reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Ali, 855 N.W.2d
235, 249 (Minn. 2014). This includes evidentiary rulings “related to the admissibility of
expert testimony.” State v. Thao, 875 N.W.2d 834, 840 (Minn. 2016). Whether a scientific
theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific field “is a question of law that we
review de novo ,” but district court determinations regarding foundational reliability “are
reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. ” Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800,
815 (Minn. 2000).
Bailey asserts that the district court erred by admitting exp ert testimony regarding
the DNA -analysis results because the expert testimony lacked foundational reliability.
Bailey contends that the forensic analysis concerning “major mixtures” of DNA “requires
application of a different and distinct algorithm than analyzing mixtures and identifying a
single DNA profile from a single major contributor” and thus that the state “was required
to prove that the for ensic scientist’s testimony about major mixtures was foundationally
reliable.” Bailey also asserts that the state “offered no validation studies” to show that the
“major mixtures” analysis leads to a reliable conclusion and contends that the BCA’s
“standard operating interpretation procedures at the time make no mention of analyzing
major mixtures.”
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the DNA Advisory Board’s “standards
are the appropriate standards and procedures against which laboratories must be measured
to ensure the foundational reliability of DNA testing.” State v. Traylor, 656 N.W.2d 885,

5
897 (Minn. 2003). These responsibilities were later transferred to the Scientific Working
Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM).
The SWGDAM guidelines indicate that the processes for DNA analysis are the
same, regardless of whether there is a single major DNA contributor or multiple major
DNA contributors to a mix ture. The district court revie wed the expert testimony of
Dr. Hoogendoorn, the technical leader for the DNA n uclear section at the BCA.
Dr. Hoogendoorn testified that the BCA complies with SWGDAM validation and
interpretation guidelines, as well as wit h FBI quality-assurance standards. She described
the procedures for interpreting DNA mixtures and explained how the BCA complied with
the standards for these procedures. Based on the BCA’s compliance with both SWGDAM
guidelines and FBI quality-assurance guidelines, as well as Dr. Hoogendoorn’s testimony,
Bailey’s argument in this case that the expert testimony lacked foundational reliability is
without merit, and the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.