State v. Rodriguez

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, rejecting challenges to the admission and interpretation of DNA evidence and to the sufficiency of the evidence. The confrontation claim failed because the unpreserved record did not establish who performed the relevant retesting, while the due process claim failed because the DNA evidence was explained adequately and the defense could challenge it through cross-examination, contrary evidence, or a requested instruction. The court also held that the DNA evidence, combined with the defendant’s inconsistent statements and other circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.