Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.
Defendant’s claim that a DNA analyst’s expert testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because it was based on reports made by non-testifying witnesses was rejected, principally because the claim was deemed unpreserved. There is a substantive discussion of preservation requirements. The Court, however, noted that the Court of Appeals held a similar DNA report was nontestimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. People v Rios, 7651, Ind. 1037/08 First Dept. 1-15-13.