Case Number
CrimA 149/12
Date Decided
9-24-2012
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The appellant was convicted of the crimes of carrying a weapon, intimidation, and possession of stolen property. The indictment charged that in the early morning hours of December 2, 2006, in the city of Ashdod, the appellant carried a stolen grenade into a building in which the Biton family resided, and then taped the grenade to a piece of cardboard which he then taped to the Biton family‘s front door, leaving a string tied to the grenade‘s safety mechanism. He ran away after a family member woke up and opened the door. The indictment was based on DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime, through DNA traces found on the adhesive tape used in the taping of the grenade to the door. The appellant was sentenced to 24 months in prison plus a one-year suspended sentence, and was ordered to pay compensation to the family member who had been woken by the noise. The appellant submitted an appeal claiming that his conviction was improper in that it was based only on the analysis of the DNA traces found on the main exhibit in the case, without any additional corroborating evidence. The appeal was also based on the fact that the indictment was brought two years after the initial incident, leading to an unjust impairment of the appellant‘s ability to prepare a defense. Finally the appellant challenged the sentence imposed by the district court, arguing that it was not commensurate with the offense committed.
Held: A defendant can be convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence, but such a conviction should only be permitted in exceptional cases and substantial care must be taken when DNA evidence is the sole evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellant's conviction meets the standards to be applied with regard to such exclusive DNA evidence. An analogy can be drawn between DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence, in that both types of evidence can identify an offender based on scientific data that are unique to each person. With regard to both types of evidence, inferences must be drawn in order to determine the needed facts, and the court reaches its conclusion regarding the reasonableness of such inferences on the basis of expert testimony presented to the court. However, exclusive reliance on DNA evidence presents a higher possibility of wrongful incrimination than fingerprints because DNA evidence can be collected from a wider range of sources (e.g. from skin cells, saliva, or blood, etc.) and the cells from which DNA evidence is produced are more mobile than fingerprints. The court must consider the propriety of the methods with which the DNA was collected and examined, the degree of certainty of the analysis, the nature of the DNA that was found and its location and what these factors indicate, and the defendant's explanation and evidence for a reasonable and exonerating version of the events. Finally, all the elements of the crime must be proven in order for the DNA evidence to be an acceptable as the basis for a conviction. In this case, the totality of the DNA evidence, combined with the nature of the item on which it was found (adhesive tape) and the insufficiency of the appellant's explanations of how his DNA came to be on the tape, lead to only one logical conclusion – that the appellant committed the crime of which he was accused. The court noted as well that the two year delay between the incident and the appellant‘s questioning – although it did impair his ability to defend himself – was not the result of any defect in police procedures or conduct, and therefore did not conflict substantively with the principles of justice and fairness. Finally, the court found that the sentence was appropriate in light of the high risk presented by the use and possession of the particular weapon as well as the appellant's prior criminal record.
Keywords
Administrative Law -- Discretion, Criminal Law -- Conviction, Criminal Law -- Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law -- Prosecution, Evidence -- Admissibility
Recommended Citation
Arbel, Edna; Zylbertal, Zvi; and Vogelman, Uzi, "Almaliach v. State" (2012). Translated Opinions. 41.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/41
