Davis v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
476 N.E.2d 127 (1985)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A jury convicted Reed Davis and Mary Davis (defendants) of neglect of a dependent. On August 3, 1982, a male infant estimated to be a few hours old was found at the side of a road. Police received an anonymous call identifying the Davises as the infant’s parents. The prosecution (plaintiff) called Michael Conneally, a professor of medical genetics, to testify as an expert witness about the statistical likelihood that the Davises were the infant’s parents based upon a tissue-typing test and a series of blood tests for 20 separate genetic-marker systems (the 20-series test). Conneally testified that he looked at tables accepted by the scientific community to determine the frequency of each genetic marker among White people in Indiana. Conneally stated the statistical probability of each test result, and then combined the probabilities of both test results to explain that the odds were 518,000-to-one that the infant’s parents were the Davises rather than another random couple in Indiana. The Davises appealed their convictions. The Davises did not dispute the results of the tests; instead, they argued that Conneally’s statistical-probability calculations were unduly prejudicial and had a potentially exaggerated impact on the jurors. The Davises also argued that insufficient evidence supported their convictions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shields, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
