## Facts

- Andrew Dayton was charged with first-degree sexual assault and first-degree burglary after entering a 67-year-old woman’s home in Huslia, Alaska around 5:00 a.m. and sexually assaulting her.
- A sexual-assault exam produced vaginal swabs; law enforcement obtained a blood sample from Dayton and comparison samples from the victim and another man.
- Early DNA testing excluded the victim and the other man as sources of sperm-fraction DNA and matched Dayton.
- Dayton’s first trial ended in a hung jury.
- Before the second trial, the state crime lab adopted STR testing and created an Athabascan STR population database; at retrial, the State presented a random match probability for Dayton’s STR profile of about 1 in 2.5 million for unrelated Athabascans.
- Dayton objected that the State could not rely on the Athabascan database without first establishing its reliability in a separate evidentiary hearing and sought disclosure of the donors’ names used to build the database.
- After a prior appellate remand for additional findings, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, including testimony from an FBI DNA databasing expert about the acceptance and publication of the database and methods.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting DNA statistical frequency testimony based on an Athabascan STR database without a separate reliability hearing establishing that the database was the type reasonably relied on by experts under Alaska Evidence Rule 703.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the defense request to compel disclosure of the identities of individuals whose samples were used to construct the Athabascan database.
3. Whether the STR-based random match probability testimony satisfied Alaska’s Daubert/Coon-type reliability standard for admissibility.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed Dayton’s convictions.
- The court held the Athabascan STR database and the associated frequency statistics were sufficiently reliable and were proper bases for expert opinion under Alaska Evidence Rule 703.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the STR frequency evidence; remaining criticisms went to weight, not admissibility.
- The court upheld denial of compelled disclosure of database donors’ identities as unnecessary to mount a scientific challenge and unduly intrusive.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alaska Evidence Rule 703, an expert may base an opinion on data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field; a population STR database used to calculate random match probabilities can qualify when supported by evidence of standard forensic use and acceptance.
- Reliability for forensic DNA frequency evidence focuses on validated methodology and population-genetics practices; ethnically specific databases are admissible when shown to be constructed and used consistent with accepted standards.
- A trial court’s decision to admit scientific evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; disputes about the precise strength of a statistic generally affect weight rather than admissibility once foundational reliability is shown.
- Discovery aimed at identifying individual DNA database contributors may be denied where the defense can challenge the database through methodological inquiry, cross-examination, and expert testimony, and where donor identities are not necessary to test scientific validity.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the admission of STR-based DNA frequency testimony derived from an Athabascan population database and held that the defense was not entitled to donors’ identities, emphasizing that accepted methodology and aggregate database properties—rather than individualized donor information—control admissibility and adequate testing of reliability.


Dayton v. State, 89 P.3d 806 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004)