State v. Johnson

Summary

The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the defendant's confrontation claim regarding the DNA analyst was unreviewable because the record did not establish the analyst's personal knowledge, while the forensic biologist's confrontation error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It also held that misleading testimony concerning a witness's possible benefit was either cured or immaterial and therefore did not require a new trial. The court further held that references to the complainants as victims, considered with the trial court's repeated curative instructions, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.