Exclusion of disputed portions of the DNA analysis report; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403

The court held that the trial court did not err by excluding disputed portions of the DNA analysis report. Defendant was convicted of two counts of CSC III and one count of CSC IV for sexually assaulting his adult daughter. The trial court sentenced him to 5 to 15 years for each CSC III conviction, and 1 to 2 years for the CSC IV conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred in applying the rape-shield statute, noting the trial court did not rely on it in rendering its evidentiary ruling. Rather, it applied MRE 401, 403, and 802 to exclude the DNA evidence at issue. It also properly applied the relevant evidentiary rules. In addition, he offered “no other theory as to how the presence of another male’s DNA on [the victim] made it less likely that he had sexual contact with” the victim. As such, the presence of the other male’s DNA on the victim “was irrelevant and would have been misleading to the jury.” Moreover, the forensic biologist testified that “DNA can transfer through even indirect contact, and that she could not say how defendant’s DNA ended up on” the victim. Thus, defendant “was able to present his argument through other means and admission of the disputed evidence for defendant’s purposes would have been cumulative.” Moreover, even if exclusion of the evidence was improper, reversal was not warranted because the evidence did not support the conclusion that defendant was actually innocent or that the alleged error “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Affirmed.