Description: Olathe, Kansas criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with possession with methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia.

In October 2018, police officers on patrol noticed what looked like an empty vehicle with its doors open in a hotel parking lot. Because of recent burglaries in the area, the officers approached the vehicle. They found Keleti in its driver's seat and a woman named Skylar Cordray in the passenger seat.

Officers arrested Cordray after she refused to cooperate during the stop. Keleti cooperated with officers and told the police that he owned the vehicle and that he had been staying at the hotel with a friend. After finding marijuana and a $20 bill in Cordray's pocket, the officers called a K-9 unit to the scene. The drug dog alerted to the car and a bag in the car behind the driver's seat. The bag had a feminine appearance and contained paperwork addressed to Cordray. Inside the bag, officers found a digital scale, a prescription bottle containing marijuana, and a plastic bag with a large volume of what police later identified as methamphetamine. The officers then arrested Keleti and searched him. Body camera footage of that search showed that one of the officers had not changed his gloves after he touched Keleti's sweaty skin before he handled the bag of methamphetamine.

The State charged Keleti with possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. At the jury trial, the parties presented conflicting testimony about what impact the officer's oversight (in not changing his gloves) had on the DNA profile for the bag of methamphetamine. Experts from both sides acknowledged that DNA can be transferred across people and objects during a search. The State's forensic expert testified that the State had conducted a DNA analysis of the bag containing the methamphetamine and had found DNA from at least four people on the bag. According to that expert, it was 194 septillion times more likely that the major DNA profile on the bag was Keleti's than anyone else's. On crossexamination, Keleti disputed this evidence and challenged the protocol the officers had used during the search. The cross-examination of the State's DNA expert, Deputy Bethany Stone, focused almost exclusively on DNA transfer.

Keleti's expert, Stephanie Beine, testified that DNA contamination "is well studied and documented in the literature." In her opinion, the concentration level of the DNA on the bag of methamphetamine likely represented a secondary transfer from Keleti's skin to the bag based on the low quantity of the sample. But she conceded on cross-examination that the sample could have been a primary transfer from Keleti having directly touched the bag.

During Beine's testimony, Keleti moved to admit an article on DNA transfer from Forensic Science International. The State objected to its admission as hearsay, and the district court sustained the objection over Keleti's protest that the learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule applied.

The jury convicted Keleti of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia, but it acquitted him of possession of marijuana.

Keleti timely moved for a judgment of acquittal and a motion for new trial, alleging that the district court had prevented him from presenting his defense by excluding the journal article. In its response brief, the State conceded that the article met the requirements for a learned treatise under K.S.A. 60-460(cc). But the State argued that because the substance of the article was the same as oral testimony presented by Keleti's expert, no prejudicial error had occurred.

The district court held a hearing on Keleti's motions, then denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. It found the jury had more than enough evidence to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Keleti possessed the methamphetamine. The district court did not rule on whether the article was admissible under the learned treatise exception, but it found that it did not know what additional help the article could have provided because its contents duplicated testimony presented by both sides. The district court also denied the motion for a new trial, finding that because Keleti had the opportunity to ask his expert about the contents of the article but chose not to, he was not deprived of the opportunity to present a defense.

* * *

State v. Keleti, 126,429 (Kan. App. Oct 25, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: