State v. White

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, holding that he could not obtain appellate review of his constitutional claim for public funding of a DNA expert because he declined to apply through the public defender’s office and therefore failed to establish the necessary factual predicate of indigency. It also held that the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting the eyewitness’s postidentification and trial confidence statements because they were relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and subject to challenge through cross-examination and expert testimony. D’AURIA, J., concurring, agreed with the result but expressed concern about the state’s late disclosure and the lack of a clear process for indigent defendants represented by private counsel to obtain expert funding.