State v. White

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s assault conviction, holding that he failed to establish the indigency necessary to obtain review of his due process claim for public funding of a DNA expert because he declined to apply through the public defender’s office. The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion by admitting the victim’s postidentification and trial confidence statements because they were relevant, not unfairly prejudicial, and subject to testing through cross-examination, expert testimony, and jury instructions. D’AURIA, J., concurring, agreed with the result but criticized the lack of a clear funding pathway and the potential constitutional burden created by the state’s late DNA disclosure.