State v. White

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s assault conviction, concluding that he had not established the indigency necessary to obtain review of his constitutional claim concerning funding for a DNA expert because he declined to apply through the public defender’s office. The court also held that the victim’s postidentification and trial confidence statements were relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and that their admission did not improperly invade the jury’s role. D’AURIA, J., concurring, agreed with the judgment but urged clearer procedures for indigent defendants seeking defense funding and expressed concern about the effects of the prosecution’s late DNA disclosure.