Derek Stanton Lamar v Commonwealth of Virginia

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judge Annunziata, Senior Judge Duff and Judge Clements*
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
DEREK STANTON LAMAR
MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY
v. 	Record No. 0158-99-4 	JUDGE JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY
LeRoy F. Millette, Jr., Judge
Jerrold J. Negin for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
Derek Stanton Lamar, appellant, contends the trial court
erred in allowing the Commonwealth's DNA expert to testify. 	At
appellant's trial for rape, the Commonwealth called Karolyn
Tontarski,1 a forensic scientist, to testify as an expert in DNA
* Judge Jean Harrison Clements took part in the
consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code
§ 17.1-400, recodifying Code § 17-116.01.
** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
1 Although the transcript refers to the witness as
Tantarski, her name as used on the certificates of analysis is
Tontarski. 	Therefore, Tontarski will be used in this memorandum
opinion.

analysis. 	Tontarski tested and analyzed genetic material taken
from different sources using various methods of DNA analysis.
In her testimony, Tontarski provided mathematical probabilities
of the likelihood that someone other than appellant contributed
the tested genetic material.
Appellant contended that Tontarski could not testify about
her mathematical results because she did not compile the DNA
database and because the database was not admitted in evidence.
We addressed this issue in Hills v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. App.
___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2000) (this day decided; affirming in part,
reversing and remanding in part upon other grounds). 	In Hills,
the defendant made the same argument as appellant, namely, that it
was error to allow an expert witness to rely upon and testify
about a statistical database that she did not compile and that was
not admitted into evidence. 	See id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___.
Hills, like appellant, contended that the testimony referring to
and applying the database "constituted inadmissible hearsay." 	Id.
at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. 	Citing supporting statutory and case
law, we held that the DNA testimony was properly admitted. 	See
id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. 	For the reasons more particularly
stated in Hills, we affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
- 2 -