State v. Hayden

Citations: 950 P.2d 1024; 90 Wash. App. 100; 1998 Wash. App. LEXIS 229Docket: NO. 38162-8-I

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; February 17, 1998; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Eric H. Hayden appeals his first-degree felony murder conviction, arguing that the trial court incorrectly admitted enhanced fingerprint evidence and mandated a mental health evaluation and treatment as a condition of his community placement post-confinement. The case involved the murder of 27-year-old Dawn Fehring, whose body was found in her apartment, showing signs of asphyxiation and blood near her body. Hayden became a suspect due to his inconsistent alibi and nervous demeanor during police questioning.

The Kirkland Police Department submitted a blood-stained bed sheet from the crime scene to Daniel Holshue, a latent print examiner, who initially struggled to identify fingerprints due to subtle contrast after chemical treatment. Expert Erik Berg subsequently enhanced the prints digitally, allowing Holshue to identify multiple points of comparison, linking the prints to Hayden. Charged with felony murder related to a rape leading to Fehring's death, Hayden was found guilty after an 8-day trial. The court sentenced him within the standard range and imposed mental health evaluation requirements.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, stating that the Frye test for admissibility of scientific evidence was appropriately applied, confirming that the enhanced fingerprint techniques used were generally accepted in the scientific community.

Evidence not involving new methods or scientific principles does not require a Frye hearing, as established in State v. Ortiz. Full acceptance of a process within the scientific community eliminates the need for such a hearing, per State v. Russell. In this case, the trial court conducted a Frye hearing to assess the admissibility of prints identified using enhanced digital imaging. The State presented expert testimony from Holshue and Berg, detailing their identification of Hayden's prints from a bed sheet, along with forensic literature on digital image enhancement. Hayden did not contest the State's experts or the literature presented, instead arguing that the enhanced digital imaging process lacked general acceptance in the scientific community due to its recent application and the non-forensic design of the computer programs utilized. He claimed the process did not meet the Frye standard. The State countered that enhanced digital imaging is not novel and is accepted in the relevant community, satisfying the Frye criteria. The technology, originating from NASA’s research in the 1960s and 1970s, was first applied in forensics by the Tacoma Police Department in 1995. Despite advancements, historical skepticism about image enhancement methods was noted, suggesting that costs and concerns about detail authenticity contributed to the process's slow adoption in forensic science.

The State argues against the novelty of enhanced digital imaging in forensic applications, referencing *State v. Noltie*, where the admissibility of colposcope images in child abuse cases was upheld, with the court stating that colposcopy is not a novel scientific technique despite its recent application in such cases. The court also cited supportive cases from other jurisdictions. In contrast, no published appellate decision has addressed the admissibility of latent prints processed by enhanced digital imaging, although *Litaker v. Texas* briefly mentioned the process without challenging its admissibility. The court noted that while digital photography and image enhancement are not novel, their forensic application is relatively new. Despite the State's persuasive argument that the process is generally accepted, the court must still apply the Frye standard for admissibility, as this is a matter of first impression. 

Reviewing the Frye standard de novo, the court considers available literature and expert testimony to determine if enhanced digital imaging is accepted within the scientific community. The State presented two expert witnesses and five forensic journal articles in support of its position. The primary expert, Berg, a forensic specialist with significant experience in enhanced digital imaging, provided detailed explanations of the process at trial and authored relevant articles. The opposing party, Hayden, did not present witnesses or evidence to counter the State’s claims, despite the opportunity to do so.

Digital photography offers significant advantages over analogue film, including the ability to capture around 16 million colors and 256 shades of gray. Unlike film, digital images utilize a chip and hard drive for light sensitivity. At trial, expert witness Berg asserted that the digital enhancement process is objective, employing software to improve sharpness and contrast without adding or altering the original image. This process, which involves removing extraneous colors and patterns, differs from "image restoration," which adds elements based on subjective expectations. Berg's experience was limited, as he had never extracted a latent print from fabric before, yet there was no evidence suggesting that the material affected the process's validity. The reviewed fabric and enhanced photographs clearly displayed a handprint, confirming the enhancement process did not introduce any new information. The trial court found Berg’s technique to have a 100% reliability factor and zero margin of error, with results verifiable and reproducible by other experts. The State's literature indicated that digital image processing for latent fingerprints has been utilized since at least 1987, and there was broad consensus among experts regarding its validity. Consequently, the court upheld the admission of the evidence and affirmed Hayden's conviction, noting that the remainder of the opinion would not be published but retained as public record.