State v. Johnson

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that his confrontation claim concerning the DNA analyst was unreviewable because the record did not establish the analyst’s personal knowledge, while the confrontation violation involving the forensic biologist was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It also held that misleading testimony about a possible benefit to the principal witness was not material enough to require a new trial and that references to the complainants as “victims,” considered with the curative instructions, did not deny the defendant a fair trial.