## Facts

- Bryce Wallace was strangled to death in his home; investigators found bloodstains on Wallace’s clothing and on his front doorknob.
- The State submitted the stains for DNA testing by Lifecodes Corporation and compared the stain DNA to a sample taken from Waylon Dwight Perry.
- Lifecodes analysts reported a DNA “match” to Perry and presented statistical frequency evidence indicating an extremely low probability of a coincidental match.
- Perry was tried for capital murder; the State presented testimony from Lifecodes personnel describing the testing process, interpretation, and the statistical conclusions.
- Defense counsel objected during the testimony but did not request a hearing outside the jury’s presence to determine the admissibility of the DNA evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether DNA identification evidence (including match testimony and population-frequency statistics) is admissible in Alabama.
2. What foundational showing is required before admitting DNA evidence based on a relatively new scientific technique.
3. Whether the record supported admission of the Lifecodes DNA evidence without an evidentiary admissibility hearing outside the jury’s presence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama granted review to address the admissibility of DNA evidence used to identify the perpetrator.
- The court held DNA evidence is not automatically inadmissible, but admission requires satisfaction of a three-part test tied to general acceptance and reliable application.
- The court concluded the existing trial record was insufficient to determine whether Lifecodes’ testing and statistical calculations satisfied the required foundation.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing outside the jury’s presence to determine admissibility of:
  - DNA matching evidence, and
  - DNA population-frequency/statistical probability evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Novel scientific evidence is admissible only if the relevant scientific theory and technique have achieved general acceptance in the pertinent scientific community.
- DNA evidence requires a three-part foundation:
  - a generally accepted scientific theory supporting reliable DNA testing;
  - generally accepted techniques capable of producing reliable results; and
  - proof that the accepted techniques were properly performed and interpreted in the particular case.
- Population-frequency/statistical probability evidence accompanying a DNA match must independently satisfy foundational requirements because of its potential to strongly influence a jury.
- When admissibility is contested or the scientific proof is complex, the trial court should develop an adequate record through an evidentiary hearing outside the jury’s presence focused on methodology, quality controls, and reliability in the specific case.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court established a three-part, Frye-based standard for admitting DNA match and population-frequency evidence and remanded for a jury-out hearing to determine whether the testing and statistical proof in this case met that standard.


Ex parte Perry, 586 So. 2d 242 (Ala. 1991)