State v. Koiyan, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Apr. 7, 2020)

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery in Mecklenburg County and appealed. He complained that a fingerprint analyst’s expert testimony failed to show that the witness applied reliably applied the relevant methods and principles to the case, in violation of N.C. Evid. Rule 702(a)(3). Because the defendant failed to object at trial, the issue was reviewed for plain error only.

The testimony at issue here was similar to that of the fingerprint analyst in the recent case of State v. McPhaul, 256 N.C. App. 303 (2017) (finding error, though no prejudice, in the admission of fingerprint match testimony where the expert failed to demonstrate reliable application of the relevant principles to the case). While the expert’s testimony met the first two requirements of Rule 702—he established his training and expertise in the field and demonstrated that the methods used in the field were reliable—his testimony failed to establish reliable application of those methods to the defendant’s case. In the words of the court:

While [the expert] testified earlier that he generally examines prints for ‘all three levels of detail’ and looks for ‘ridges and bifurcations and their spatial relationship’ on each print, [the expert] failed to provide any such detail when testifying as to how he arrived at his conclusions in this case.  Koiyan Slip op. at 9-10 (emphasis in original).

The expert also failed to identify any specific characteristics of the defendant’s prints that matched the latent prints. Admission of this testimony was error and violated Rule 702. However, the defendant could not show prejudice in light of “overwhelming evidence” of guilt. The court therefore declined to find plain error and the conviction was affirmed.