ÿWPC¡t qª/½úéG€¥¿ò‚r¨Œr¶\Aeš«ÔÜâ+wkŠÏ º)îˆH}„°¿û÷t,Eø÷Û¦¨O¢ë[eÃjAÓ–ÜÛ tM°3YÍ£öTÝyëQ8DZ–šÅ¿Gp.Iàw¯ º^hìpˆÔFìøŽºœð(W“V¦šr;ãtÚ%ŠÌ½"<§½>I!3ê–ëÄä6uë!5»Q¬ {õòEXï¶TD­Lÿßa¥È‰Zæ¸óÛyšÖY„ ÉfOÚ¯í‘ÛÌªŠ¸T¾Õ"ŒŽÐ…5 xÒ0´ðtLj†QŒxŠX>O2³yR]â­ÉqÍ" %^N{ÅêÜ":›û–Vöô±‰Ú&ÅbÞ­o\H½!Ùº4±9¯vºBÀð£a´A¹Î‘‹‰ßqúiç•Yæt†•pÕŠ´¡÷ Ö¤,=6Ï^ŸáøÎêâGàC³ã*|™¢bu$b?kŸe1™•87Ž«vpœÍF@” Îùr´¤q BæœGLº®óUÂR‡€ã äìÖ=»o×{µ¨–ÇH`´()˜ËÔÈË@"j„L¢ %Ü ^ â 0ˆî wv U<Nz 4È Ü zë Òe 7 m9 #ÁP CÆTÆÆàƦrlNÞÞöàEÖ 0ôØ 0ñÌ 0î½ 0ë« 0è– 0å~ 0âc 0ßE 0Ü$ 0â 0ßâ 0ÜÁ! 0Ù" 0Öv# 0ÓL$ 0Ð% 0Íï% 0ʼ& 0á†' 0Þg( 0DE) 0Û‰) 0Ød*b<+ 0ÕD+ 0Ò, 0Ïë, 0̺- 0Ɇ. 00O/ 0</ 0¾»/ 0>y0 0v·0 0`-1 0`1 0`í1 0`M2 0`­2 08 3 0ÒE3 024 0üI4 0:E5 0Y5 0_Ø5 0 76 0jA7 0„«8 B*/: D/Y: 0„ˆ: D/ < 0Î;< 06 = 0?= 0:G> 0^> 0<ß> 0í?U6@U >>@U*|@ B¦@¦@ 0¤Ã@ D5gA D-œA 0KÉAU@B ASTBƧB 0¤mC 0DD A«UDUD~EEL~K~K~Kl ÊMZ6Yc]]]Mób9@e@e@e@e@e@e@e@e@e¾yg7k|=o=o=o=o=oà¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p¹p™t»G…‹) (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularõ}|)rtyBar¼]­3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 9Ý ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€not€to€identify€by€name€the€minor€victims€of€sexual€abuse.€€Therefore,€we€referÐ ° Ðto€the€minor€victim€in€this€case€only€by€her€initials.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ð   ' tg0tg .    ìÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔApparently,€this€link€in€the€chain€of€custody€is€especially€important€in€cases€where€mtDNA€is€used€asÐ ° Ðevidence.€€According€to€evidence€in€the€record,€mtDNA€samples€are€hypersensitive€to€contamination,€and€the€particularÐ tÄ Ðmethods€of€storing€and€mounting€the€hairs€could€very€well€compromise€the€test€results.€2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€I(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dH)1dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓH)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(|I2Õw$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial d(|3€$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(uHš Z‹(Times New Roman ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3€$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK tÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWith€our€decision€in€òòMomonóó,€we€made€a€distinction€between€those€constitutional€errors€which€are€ð ðtrialÐ ° Ðerrorsðð€and€those€which€are€ð ðstructural€defects.ðð€€18€S.W.3d€at€165„66.€€Only€those€constitutional€errors€falling€withinÐ tÄ Ðthe€latter€category€defy€harmless€error€analysis€and€require€automatic€reversal.€€Because€we€do€not€view€denial€of€neededÐ 8ˆ Ðexpert€assistance€to€impact€the€ð ðentire€conduct€of€the€trial€from€beginning€to€end,ðð€we€conclude€that€the€denial€of€thisÐ üL Ðconstitutional€right€is€a€trial€error€and€properly€subject€to€constitutional€harmless€error€analysis.€€òòCf.óó€òòFitzgerald€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Stateóó,Ð À Ð972€P.2d€1157,€1168€€(Okla.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(Ô_ÔstatingÔ_Ô€that€ð ðwe€agree€with€the€Tenth€and€Eighth€Circuits€that,€generally,Ð „Ô Ððða€right€to€which€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€absent€some€threshold€showing€[cannot]€fairly€be€defined€as€basic€to€theÐ H ˜ Ðstructure€of€a€constitutional€trialðððð).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòRey€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Stateóó,€897€S.W.2d€333,€345„46€(Tex.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(Ô_ÔholdingÔ_ÔÐ  \ Ðdenial€of€needed€expert€to€be€a€structural€defect,€reasoning€in€part€that€the€ð ð[United€States]€Supreme€Court€in€òòAkeóóÐ Ð  Ðreversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€without€conducting€a€harm€analysisðð). BÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€general€background€of€mtDNA€analysis€discussed€here€was€provided€at€trial€by€FBI€Special€Agent€MarkÐ ° ÐWilson.€€At€the€time€of€this€trial,€Agent€Wilson€was€one€of€only€two€experts€in€the€nation€that€had€given€testimony€in€aÐ tÄ ÿ Ðcriminal€case€regarding€mtDNA.€€Agent€Wilson€was€admitted€as€an€expert€in€DNA€analysis,€and€it€appears€that€he€hasÐ ° Ðhad€substantial€experience€in€mtDNA€analysis.€ b Ý ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThere€are€presently€six€other€states€which€have€DNA€statutes€similar€to€Tennesseeððs€statute.€€òòSeeóó€Ô‡\ôòµòòôòµÔConn.€Gen.Ð ° ÐStat.€Ann.€ðð€54-86k(a)€(West€Supp.€1999)€(ð ðIn€any€criminal€proceeding,€DNA€(deoxyribonucleic€acid)€testing€shall€beÐ tÄ Ðdeemed€to€be€a€reliable€scientific€technique€and€the€evidence€of€a€DNA€profile€comparison€may€be€admitted€to€proveÐ 8ˆ Ðor€disprove€the€identity€of€any€person.ðð);€Del.€Code€Ann.€Ô_ÔtitÔ_Ô.€29,€ðð€4713(a)€(Supp.€1999)€(ð ðIn€any€criminal€proceeding,Ð üL ÐDNA€(deoxyribonucleic€acid)€testing€shall€be€deemed€to€be€a€reliable€scientific€technique,€and€the€evidence€of€a€DNAÐ À Ðprofile€comparison€shall€be€admitted€to€prove€or€disprove€the€identity€of€any€person.ðð);€Ô_ÔInd.Ô_Ô€Code€Ann.€ðð€35„37„4„13(b)Ð „Ô Ð(1998)€(ð ðIn€a€criminal€trial€or€hearing,€the€results€of€forensic€DNA€analysis€are€admissible€in€evidence€without€antecedentÐ H ˜  Ðexpert€testimony€that€forensic€DNA€analysis€provides€a€trustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifying€characteristicsÐ ° Ðin€an€individualððs€genetic€material.ðð);€Ô_ÔMinn.Ô_Ô€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€634.25€(West€Supp.€1999)€(ð ðIn€a€civil€or€criminal€trial€orÐ tÄ Ðhearing,€the€results€of€DNA€analysis,€as€defined€in€section€299C.155,€are€admissible€in€evidence€without€antecedentÐ 8ˆ Ðexpert€testimony€that€DNA€analysis€provides€a€trustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€in€anÐ üL Ðindividualððs€genetic€material€upon€Ô_Ôa€showingÔ_Ô€that€the€offered€testimony€meets€the€standards€for€admissibility€set€forthÐ À Ðin€the€Rules€of€Evidence.ðð);€Ô_ÔN.D.€Cent.Ô_Ô€Code€ðð€31„13„02€(Supp.€1999)€(ð ðIn€any€court€proceeding,€DNA€testing€is€deemedÐ „Ô Ðto€be€a€reliable€scientific€technique,€and€the€evidence€of€a€DNA€profile€comparison€must€be€admitted€as€prima€facieÐ H ˜ Ðevidence€to€prove€or€disprove€the€identity€of€any€person.ðð);Ô#†ôòµòò\ôòµì#Ô€Ô_ÔVa.Ô_Ô€Code€Ann.€ðð€19.2„270.5€(Michie€Supp.€1999)€(ð ðIn€anyÐ  \ Ðcriminal€proceeding,€DNA€(deoxyribonucleic€acid)€testing€shall€be€deemed€to€be€a€reliable€scientific€technique€and€theÐ Ð  Ðevidence€of€a€DNA€profile€comparison€may€be€admitted€to€prove€or€disprove€the€identity€of€any€person.ðð€).€€Several€ofÐ ” ä  Ðthese€statutes€are€less€broad€than€Tennesseeððs€statute,€which€applies€to€civil€cases€in€addition€to€criminal€cases. PÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€trial€court€ruled€in€part€that€because€some€non„indigent€defendants€could€not€afford€expert€assistance€inÐ ° ÐDNA€analysis,€the€appellant€in€this€case€was€not€being€deprived€of€needed€expert€services€because€of€his€indigency.€€WithÐ tÄ Ðall€due€respect,€we€could€not€disagree€more€with€this€analysis.€€The€test€to€be€applied€is€whether€òòthisóó€defendant€is€indigentÐ 8ˆ Ðand€has€made€a€showing€of€a€ð ðparticularized€needðð€for€the€expert€assistance.€€When€a€defendant€can€make€this€thresholdÐ üL Ðshowing,€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€expert€assistance€is€clearly€a€denial€of€due€process€of€law,€irrespective€of€the€financialÐ À Ðcircumstances€and€choices€of€other€defendants.€€To€be€clear,€the€focus€of€the€inquiry€must€remain€upon€affording€theÐ „Ô Ðparticular€indigent€defendant€with€ð ðthe€basic€tools€of€an€adequate€defenseðð€as€required€by€the€Due€Process€Clause.€ YÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAs€to€the€actual€method€of€analysis,€the€North€Carolina€Court€of€Appeals€recently€provided€this€succinctÐ ° Ðstatement:Ð tÄ Ðà8  àMitochondrial€DNA€testing€is€performed€by€extracting€the€DNA€from€the€mitochondria.€The€DNA€isÐ 8ˆ Ðthen€amplified€and€examined€to€determine€its€sequences€of€Aððs,€Gððs,€Tððs,€and€Ô_ÔCððsÔ_Ô.€The€sequence€isÐ üL Ðthen€compared€to€another€sequence€donated€by€a€known€person.€If€the€sequences€are€identical,€theÐ À Ðexaminer€compares€the€sequence€to€the€available€database€of€mtDNA€sequences€to€determine€if€he€hasÐ „Ô Ðever€seen€that€same€sequence.€The€statistic€will€be€based€upon€the€frequency€of€similar€DNA€patternsÐ H ˜ Ðoccurring€within€the€database€and€within€each€group€in€the€database.€The€final€result€simply€eitherÐ  \ Ðexcludes€the€tested€individual€as€the€sample€donor€or€confirms€that€such€individual€is€within€a€certainÐ Ð  Ðpercentage€of€the€population€which€could€have€donated€the€sample.Д ä Ð Ð  ÐòòState€Ô_Ôv.Ô_Ô€Underwoodóó,€518€S.E.2d€231,€237€(N.C.€Ct.€App.€1999). CÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔIn€fact,€the€appellant€took€full€advantage€of€this€opportunityð"ðto€the€extent€he€was€able€to€do€so€withoutÐ ° Ðexpert€assistanceð"ðby€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôextensive€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôquestioning€the€stateððs€expert€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔaboutÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôreliability€of€the€particular€mtDNA€tests€in€thisÐ tÄ Ðcase.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô /Ý ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔSection€21„7„117€defines€ð ðDNA€analysisðð€broadly€as€ð ðthe€process€through€which€deoxyribonucleic€acidÐ ° Ð(DNA)€in€a€human€biological€specimen€is€analyzed€and€compared€with€DNA€from€another€biological€specimen€forÐ tÄ Ðidentification€purposes.ðð€€We€agree€with€both€parties€that€the€method€of€mtDNA€analysis€falls€within€the€statutoryÐ 8ˆ Ðdefinition€of€ð ðDNA€analysis.ðð ´Ý ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAccording€to€the€trial€court,€this€fact€established€that€the€appellant€was€not€being€denied€expert€help€solelyÐ ° Ðbecause€of€his€indigency.€€During€the€hearing€on€the€motion,€Mr.€Raybin€admitted€that€even€some€non„indigentÐ tÄ Ðdefendants€are€unable€to€afford€expert€assistance€in€DNA€analysis.€€He€characterized€this€situation€as€a€ð ðtwilightðð€positionÐ 8ˆ Ðbetween€being€able€to€afford€both€counsel€and€expert€assistance€and€not€being€able€to€afford€either€counsel€or€expertÐ üL Ðassistance.€€He€noted€that€in€some€cases,€courts€have€found€a€defendant€to€be€indigent€with€respect€to€a€particular€issue,Ð À Ðòòi.e.óó,€payment€of€trial€transcripts€for€appeal,€even€though€the€defendant€was€financially€able€to€afford€competent€counsel. üÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔEven€the€trial€judge€seemed€to€recognize€the€importance€of€the€DNA€analysis€to€the€Stateððs€case,€as€sheÐ ° Ðordered€the€State€to€make€its€DNA€experts€available€for€defense€questioning.€€Despite€the€trial€judgeððs€recognition€of€thisÐ tÄ Ðfact,€however,€we€conclude€that€her€order€did€little€to€mitigate€the€effects€of€denying€the€appellant€his€own€expert.€€TheÐ 8ˆ ÐStateððs€forensic€witnesses,€who€actually€conducted€the€DNA€tests€used€at€trial,€had€a€significant€interest€in€seeing€thatÐ üL Ðtheir€test€results€were€validated€at€trial€and€admitted€into€evidence.€€As€such,€these€experts€may€have€been€of€littleÐ À Ðpractical€help€to€a€defendant€seeking€to€expose€any€frailties€in€the€DNA€testing€procedures€or€seeking€to€challenge€theÐ „Ô Ðinfirmities€in€the€interpretations€of€those€tests.€ rÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€victim€identified€the€appellant€at€trial€as€the€perpetrator,€she€admitted€on€cross„examination€thatÐ ° Ðshe€was€unable€to€identify€the€appellant€in€the€lineup€because€all€of€the€persons€in€the€lineup€looked€alike. ÖÝ ƒRÕw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôòµò»»Ô€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€complexity€of€the€various€DNA€tests€and€results€involved€in€this€case€is€further€illustrated€by€the€languageÐ ° Ðof€the€Stateððs€motion€requesting€a€continuation€of€the€hearing€on€the€appellantððs€motion€in€limine:€ð ðBecause€of€theÐ tÄ Ðinordinate€complexity€with€respect€to€this€scientific€evidence,€the€State€is€requesting€a€continuance€of€this€matter€in€orderÐ 8ˆ Ðto€prepare€an€adequate€response€for€this€anticipated€Motion€in€Limine.ðð€€Given€the€Ô_Ôfact€that€evenÔ_Ô€the€prosecutors,€whoÐ üL Ðpresumably€had€DNA€experts€available,€had€trouble€preparing€responses€to€pre„trial€motions,€it€seems€incongruous€toÐ À Ðthen€conclude€that€the€appellant€lacked€a€ð ðparticularized€needðð€for€expert€assistance€to€prepare€for€a€full€trial. Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€A»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼A»»»ÔÑ8€1XXdì»»d8Ñà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î[|AÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼A»îî[| #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€3,€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÌÔ#†¼A»XX1ñ#Ôò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€v.€€RANDALL€SCOTT€ó óÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÐ úJ ÐÔ#†¼A»XX1`#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÌò òAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ú J ЀÔ#†¼A»XX1·#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔCriminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ æ 6 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„C„1362€€€€€€Hon.€Cheryl€Blackburn,€JudgeÐ Ò " ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<•` AßÐ –æ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M1997„00088„SC„R11„CDÔ#†¼A»XX1J#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔ€„€Filed€December€11,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÌßA€V) °°` dE<h` AßÐ i¹  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant€in€this€case€was€arrested€and€charged€with€the€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery€ofÐ P  Ða€nine„year„old€child€in€Davidson€County.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€State€conducted€various€types€of€DNAÐ <Œ Ðanalysis€on€several€pieces€of€evidence,€and€the€appellant,€who€is€indigent,€requested€state„fundedÐ (x Ðexpert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis€to€prepare€his€defense.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÐ d Ðappellantððs€motion€for€expert€assistance€and€declined€to€hold€a€hearing€to€establish€the€reliability€ofÐ P Ðmitochondrial€DNA€analysis.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€the€State€properly€established€the€chainÐ ì< Ðof€custody€for€certain€hairs€removed€from€the€victim€during€her€physical€examination.€€The€appellantÐ Ø( Ðwas€found€guilty€by€a€jury€on€both€charges,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€theÐ Ä Ðconvictions€and€sentences.€€On€appeal€to€this€Court,€we€address€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€theÐ ° Ðappellant€was€entitled€to€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis€under€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909Ð œì ÐS.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995)€and€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ ˆØ Ðin€failing€to€hold€a€pre„trial€hearing€on€the€reliability€of€mitochondrial€DNA€analysis;€and€(3)Ð tÄ Ðwhether€the€Stateððs€failure€to€establish€a€chain€of€custody€as€to€certain€hairs€retrieved€from€the€victimÐ `° Ðwas€errorÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€For€the€reasons€given€herein,€we€hold€that€although€the€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€pre„Ð L œ Ðtrial€hearing€on€the€reliability€of€mitochondrial€DNA€analysis,€he€was€entitled€to€receive€expertÐ 8!ˆ  Ðassistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis.€€We€also€hold€that€the€State€failed€to€properly€establish€theÐ $"t! Ðchain€of€custody€of€the€hair€samples.€Ô#†¼A»XX1¯#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔ€We€reverse€the€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences,€and€weÐ #`" Ðremand€this€case€to€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€both€counts€of€theÐ ü#L# Ðindictment.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓŽÓÌò òÔ#†¼A»XX1… #ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ À&"& ÐCriminal€AppealsÔ#†¼A»XX1Á#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔ€Affirmed€in€Part,€Reversed€in€Part;€Case€Remanded€for€a€New€Trialó óÐ ¬'ü"' ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼A»àX1z#ÔÔ‡X1X.¼AÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,€óóandÐ „)Ô$) ÐòòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birchóó,€òòJróó.,€and€òòJanice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð p*À%* Ðâ âÐ \+¬&+ý ÐÔ_ÔJeffrey€A.€DeVasher,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Nashville,€Tennesseeð"ðappellate€counsel;€J.Ð ° ÐMichael€Engle,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Nashville,€Tennesseeð"ðtrial€counsel,€for€the€appellant,Ð œì ÐRandall€Scott.Ô#†¼A»XX1&#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÐ ˆØ Ðâ âÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð `° ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼A»XX1Î#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÐ L œ ÐÔ#†¼A»XX1ÿ#ÔÔ‡X1X»¼AÔÌÓ÷ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼A»XX1V#ÔÐ  ` ÐÌòòÔ‡X1X»¼AÔFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDÔ#†¼A»XX1â#ÔÐ ^  ÐóóÌÓ  ÓÔ€X1X»¼AÔà  àDuring€the€early€evening€hours€of€April€17,€1995,€nine„year„old€L.F.׃ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€walked€from€her€houseÐ  \  Ðin€Nashville€to€a€local€drug€store,€which€was€located€a€few€blocks€away.€€Earlier€that€day,€her€fatherÐ øH  Ðhad€given€her€some€money,€and€L.F.€decided€to€spend€some€of€it€purchasing€a€new€pair€of€earrings.€Ð ä4  ÐSoon€after€she€entered€the€drugstore,€L.F.€noticed€a€man€purchasing€some€beer€at€the€counter.€€SheÐ Ð  Ðnoticed€the€man€because€she€saw€him€earlier€that€day€leaving€a€house€located€on€the€same€street€asÐ ¼  Ðher€house.€After€a€few€moments,€L.F.€selected€her€earrings,€paid€for€them€at€the€counter,€and€thenÐ ¨ø Ðleft€the€store€to€go€home.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAs€she€headed€home,€L.F.€walked€a€short€distance€behind€the€man€from€the€drugstore,€andÐ l¼ Ðthe€two€crossed€the€street€together€at€an€intersection€a€block€from€the€drug€store.€€Soon€after€crossingÐ X¨ Ðthe€street,€L.F.€became€aware€that€the€man€was€now€walking€closely€behind€her.€€Without€warning,Ð D” Ðthe€man€suddenly€rushed€up€from€behind€her,€grabbed€her€around€her€waist,€and€placed€his€hand€overÐ 0€ Ðher€mouth.€€The€man€then€forced€L.F.€into€an€adjacent€alley€behind€a€shed,€where€he€forced€her€toÐ l Ðthe€muddy€ground€and€removed€her€pants€and€underwear.€€The€man€then€touched€her€vagina€withÐ X Ðhis€finger,€and€he€anally€raped€her.€€Somehow,€L.F.€managed€to€escape,€and€she€ran€home€to€herÐ ôD Ðfather.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àOnce€L.F.€told€her€father€what€happened,€he€immediately€called€the€Nashville€police,€whoÐ ¸ Ðarrived€about€five€or€ten€minutes€later.€€Two€officers€later€testified€that€when€they€arrived,€L.F.€wasÐ ¤ ô Ðð ðcovered€in€dirtðð€and€had€ð ðdirt€on€her€arms€and€on€her€clothing.ðð€€The€officers€also€described€L.F.Ð !à Ðas€being€quiet€and€scared,€although€she€became€very€upset€when€the€officers€asked€her€to€describeÐ |"Ì  Ðwhat€happened.€€When€initially€questioned€by€one€of€the€officers,€L.F.€was€unable€to€give€any€details,Ð h#¸! Ðbut€she€was€later€able€to€describe€her€lone€attacker€as€a€black€male€wearing€a€red€jersey€and€shortÐ T$¤" Ðpants.€€L.F.€also€showed€the€officers€where€the€attack€took€place,€and€she€directed€the€officers€to€theÐ @% # Ðhouse€from€which€she€saw€the€man€leave€earlier€that€day.€€L.F.€was€unable,€however,€to€identify€theÐ ,&|!$ Ðappellant€as€her€attacker€in€a€lineup€conducted€eight€days€later.Ð 'h"% Ðâ âÐ (T#& Ðà  àTwo€of€the€officers€then€went€to€the€house€described€by€L.F.,€where€they€discovered€theÐ ° Ðâ âappellant€in€the€kitchen.€€The€appellant,€who€was€renting€a€room€in€the€house,€consented€to€havingÐ œì Ðthe€officers€search€his€bedroom.€€Upon€entering€the€appellantððs€bedroom,€the€officers€found€a€redÐ ˆØ Ðsweatshirt€with€short,€gray€sleeves€lying€on€the€bed,€along€with€a€pair€of€muddy€blue€jean€shorts€onÐ tÄ Ðthe€floor.€€The€owner€of€the€house€told€the€police€that€the€appellant€was€wearing€the€sweatshirt€andÐ `° Ðshorts€earlier€in€the€evening,€although€he€later€changed€clothes.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWhen€initially€questioned€by€the€police,€the€appellant€claimed€that€he€had€been€home€allÐ $ t Ðevening,€but€upon€further€questioning,€he€admitted€that€he€went€to€the€drugstore€to€buy€a€pack€ofÐ  ` Ðcigarettes€and€some€beer.€€The€appellant,€who€also€originally€claimed€to€be€wearing€a€black€t„shirtÐ ü L  Ðand€pants€when€he€went€to€buy€cigarettes€and€beer,€later€admitted€to€wearing€the€red€sweatshirt€andÐ è 8  Ðblue€jean€shorts€to€the€drugstore.€€The€appellant€could€not€say€how€his€clothes€became€muddied.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àMeanwhile,€L.F.€was€taken€to€General€Hospital€in€Nashville€for€examination.€€The€nurseÐ ¬ü  Ðpractitioner€later€testified€that€the€examination€of€L.F.€revealed€ð ðan€area€of€increased€redness,€justÐ ˜è  Ðoutside€the€vaginal€opening,ðð€as€well€as€ð ða€tear€in€her€rectal€area.ðð€€The€nurse€practitioner€alsoÐ „Ô  Ðremoved€and€collected€ð ðmore€than€oneðð€foreign€hairs€from€L.F.ððs€inner€thigh€and€genital€area.€€L.F.Ð pÀ Ðwas€then€sent€to€Vanderbilt€Hospital€to€undergo€more€extensive€examination€while€under€anesthesia.€Ð \¬ ÐThis€examination€revealed€one€significant€tear€in€the€rectum€accompanied€by€four€smaller€tears€inÐ H˜ Ðthe€same€area.€€According€to€the€nurse€practitioner,€these€tears€probably€occurred€within€twenty„fourÐ 4„ Ðhours€of€the€examination€and€were€consistent€with€anal€penetration.Ð  p ÐÌà  àAlong€with€blood€samples€taken€from€the€appellant€and€L.F.,€the€police€sent€L.F.ððs€rape€kitÐ øH Ðand€the€appellantððs€clothing€to€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€(TBI)€for€DNA€analysis.€Ð ä4 ÐForensic€scientists€with€the€TBI€found€blood€on€the€appellantððs€clothing,€but€they€were€unable€toÐ Ð  Ðconduct€any€analysis€on€the€sample€using€Restriction€Fragment€Length€Polymorphism€(RFLP)€DNAÐ ¼  Ðanalysis€due€to€its€insufficient€amount.€€The€TBI€did€not€conduct€any€DNA€analysis€on€the€hairsÐ ¨ø Ðcontained€in€the€rape€kit.€€All€of€these€items€were€later€sent€for€further€DNA€analysis€to€LaboratoryÐ ”ä ÐCorporation€of€America€(LabCorp),€a€North€Carolina€corporation€specializing€in€DNA€testing.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àForensic€scientists€at€LabCorp€conducted€polymerase€chain€reaction€(PCR)€DNA€analysisÐ X ¨ Ðon€the€blood€found€on€the€appellantððs€shorts€and€concluded€that€the€DNA€found€in€this€blood€sampleÐ D!” Ðwas€consistent€with€that€of€the€victim.€€The€blood€found€on€the€appellantððs€sweatshirt€was€alsoÐ 0"€  Ðconsistent€with€L.F.ððs€DNA€profile.€€Interestingly,€however,€PCR€DNA€testing€of€two€of€the€hairsÐ #l! Ðremoved€from€L.F.€revealed€a€profile€consistent€with€her€alone,€and€LabCorp€excluded€the€appellantÐ $X" Ðas€a€possible€source€of€the€hair.€€Moreover,€a€scientist€from€LabCorp€later€testified€that€she€foundÐ ô$D # Ðsamples€of€blood€from€an€unidentified€third€person€on€the€appellantððs€shorts.€€When€questioned€aboutÐ à%0!$ Ðthis€anomaly€at€trial,€the€scientist€testified€that€the€samples€could€have€been€contaminated.€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€was€later€sent€to€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€a€third€type€of€DNAÐ ¤(ô#' Ðanalysis,€mitochondrial€DNA€(mtDNA)€analysis.€€Through€this€method€of€testing,€the€FBI€concludedÐ )à$( Ðthat€one€of€the€hairs€taken€from€L.F.€had€the€same€DNA€sequence€as€that€found€in€the€appellantððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðblood€sample.€€Further,€because€this€particular€mtDNA€sequence€had€not€been€previously€observedÐ h+¸&* Ðin€the€general€population,€the€FBI€agent€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€the€probable€donor€of€theÐ ° Ðhair€removed€from€the€victim.Ð œì ÐÓ  ÓòòÌPROCEDURAL€BACKGROUNDóóÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€July€of€1996,€the€appellant€was€indicted€with€one€count€of€rape€of€a€child€and€one€countÐ L œ Ðof€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€Three€months€later,€counsel€for€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€before€theÐ 8 ˆ ÐDavidson€County€Criminal€Court€requesting€expenses€for€expert€assistance€on€the€PCR€and€mtDNAÐ $ t Ðmethods€of€DNA€analysis.€€The€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€motion,€during€which€two€expertsÐ  ` Ðin€criminal€trial€practice€testified€that€expert€assistance€was€crucial€to€conducting€a€defense€in€casesÐ ü L  Ðwhere€DNA€analysis€comprised€a€significant€portion€of€the€stateððs€evidence.€€The€first€witness,€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐAshoke€Bappa€Mukherji,€testified€that€he€had€clinical€and€trial€experience€with€DNA€analysis€andÐ Ô$  Ðthat€he€believed€expert€assistance€to€be€ð ðabsolutely€criticalðð€in€educating€defense€counsel€as€to€theÐ À  Ðtechniques,€uses,€and€weaknesses€that€may€exist€in€any€particular€case€involving€DNA.€€Mr.€Ð ¬ü  ÐMukherji€also€testified€that€despite€having€had€personal€experience€in€conducting€RFLP€analysis,€heÐ ˜è  Ðcould€not€ð ðeffectively€represent€a€client€in€challenging€the€results€of€the€DNA€testsðð€without€outsideÐ „Ô  Ðexpert€assistance.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àMr.€David€Raybin€testified€that€the€need€for€expert€assistance€in€DNA€analysis€was€muchÐ H˜ Ðdifferent€from€expert€assistance€in€other€areas€of€trial.€€Mr.€Raybin€stated€that€while€ð ð[e]xpertÐ 4„ Ðassistance€is€frequently€a€luxury,ðð€there€are€some€cases€in€which€the€expert€assistance€ð ðis€absolutelyÐ  p Ðcritical€to€the€point€where€[one]€cannot€competently€and€completely€defend€the€person€because€theÐ  \ Ðexpert€testimony€is€necessary.€€It€is€critical€to€defending€an€individual€on€the€charge€of€a€particularÐ øH Ðcrime.ðð€€Mr.€Raybin€went€so€far€as€to€say€that€he€would€not€consider€representing€the€appellant€inÐ ä4 Ðthis€case€if€expert€assistance€were€not€made€available€to€help€understand€the€Stateððs€test€results€andÐ Ð  Ðto€ð ðdevelop[]€an€expertise€capable€to€cross„examine€a€witness.ðð€€ð ðThat€is€how€critical€it€is,ðð€heÐ ¼  Ðtestified.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€December€30,€1996,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellantððs€motion€for€funds€to€secureÐ €Ð Ðexpert€assistance€with€respect€to€the€PCR€or€mtDNA€methods€of€DNA€analysis.€€In€a€written€order,Ð l¼ Ðthe€trial€court€gave€three€reasons€for€the€denial:€(1)€that€no€due€process€violation€had€been€shownÐ X ¨ Ðbecause€some€non„indigent€defendants€could€not€afford€expert€assistance;׃w×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(2)€that€the€appellantððsÐ D!” Ðcounsel€had€not€demonstrated€a€ð ðparticularized€needðð€for€the€expert€assistance€as€evidenced€by€hisÐ 0"€  Ðin„depth€knowledge€and€research€into€the€issues;€and€(3)€that€because€the€cost€of€employing€expertÐ #l! Ðassistance€in€this€case€could€easily€exceed€$10,000,€the€fiscal€burden€on€the€state€outweighed€any€riskÐ $X" Ðâ âof€misidentification.€€The€trial€court€also€required€that€the€Stateððs€experts€ð ðbe€made€available€toÐ ô$D # Ðdefense€counsel€for€in„depth€interviews€about€their€test€data,€interpretations,€and€protocols€withoutÐ ° Ðthe€presence€of€counsel€for€the€State.ðð€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€appellant€also€filed€a€separate€motion€in€limine€requesting€a€hearing€on€the€evidentiaryÐ tÄ Ðadmissibility€of€mtDNA€analysis.€€The€appellant€argued€that€because€the€technology€used€in€this€typeÐ `° Ðof€analysis€amounted€to€novel€scientific€evidence,€the€trial€court€could€not€admit€evidence€of€mtDNAÐ L œ Ðwithout€adequate€assurance€that€this€type€of€evidence€was€sufficiently€trustworthy€and€reliable.€€InÐ 8 ˆ Ðresponse,€the€State€argued€that€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€24„7„117€ð ðis€applicable€to€allÐ $ t Ðtypes€of€DNA€testing€and€the€court€is€not€required€to€conduct€a€pre„trial€hearing€concerning€theÐ  ` Ðadmissibility€of€the€same.ðð€€The€trial€court€agreed€with€the€State,€and€it€denied€the€appellantððsÐ ü L  Ðmotion.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThereafter,€the€appellant€was€tried€before€a€jury€on€both€counts€of€the€indictment.€€TheÐ À  Ðappellant€did€not€contest€the€fact€that€a€crime€had€been€committed€or€that€he€had€the€theoreticalÐ ¬ü  Ðopportunity€to€commit€the€crime.€€The€appellantððs€sole€defense€was€that€he€was€not€the€perpetratorÐ ˜è  Ðof€the€crime,€thereby€placing€the€identity€of€the€offender€squarely€at€issue.€€After€hearing€several€daysÐ „Ô  Ðof€testimony,€however,€the€jury€returned€a€guilty€verdict€on€each€count€as€charged€in€the€indictmentÐ pÀ Ðon€April€23,€1997.€€On€June€4,€1997,€the€appellant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€standard€offender€toÐ \¬ Ðserve€twenty„five€years€for€his€conviction€for€rape€of€a€child€and€to€serve€ten€years€for€his€convictionÐ H˜ Ðfor€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€court€then€ordered€that€these€two€sentences€be€servedÐ 4„ Ðconsecutively€in€the€Department€of€Correction€for€an€aggregate€sentence€of€thirty„five€years.Ð  p ÐÌà  àOn€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€the€appellant€argued,€among€other€things,€thatÐ øH Ðthe€trial€court€committed€three€important€errors:€denying€his€motion€for€expert€assistance€in€the€fieldÐ ä4 Ðof€DNA€analysis,€failing€to€hold€a€hearing€on€the€admissibility€of€mtDNA,€and€finding€that€the€StateÐ Ð  Ðproperly€established€the€chain€of€custody€for€the€hair€samples€removed€from€L.F.€€The€intermediateÐ ¼  Ðcourt€affirmed€the€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences.€€The€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðentitled€to€expert€assistance€because€no€ð ðparticularized€needðð€for€the€assistance€had€been€shown.€Ð ”ä ÐMore€specifically,€the€court€noted€that€the€lack€of€ð ðparticularized€needðð€was€shown€by€the€fact€thatÐ €Ð Ð(1)€counsel€ð ðably€cross„examined€the€stateððs€expert€witnesses€and€communicated€the€weaknesses€inÐ l¼ Ðthe€DNA€evidence€to€the€juryðð;€and€(2)€the€DNA€evidence€ð ðwas€not€crucial€to€the€stateððs€case.ðð€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðcourt€also€held€that€the€appellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€pre„trial€hearing€on€the€reliability€of€mtDNAÐ D!” Ðevidence€based€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€24„7„117€and€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòStateÐ 0"€  Ðv.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€1997).€€Finally,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€while€theÐ #l! ÐState€failed€to€properly€establish€the€chain€of€custody€for€the€hair€samples,€any€such€error€wasÐ $X" Ðharmless.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€then€requested,€and€we€granted,€permission€to€appeal€on€the€following€threeÐ Ì&"% Ðissues:€(1)€whether€the€appellant€was€entitled€to€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis€underÐ ¸'#& ÐòòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995)€and€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€13;€(2)€whetherÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€hold€a€pre„trial€hearing€to€establish€the€reliability€of€mtDNAÐ )à$( Ðanalysis;€and€(3)€whether€the€Stateððs€failure€to€establish€a€chain€of€custody€as€to€certain€hairsÐ |*Ì%) Ðretrieved€from€the€victim€was€errorÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€For€the€reasons€given€herein,€we€hold€that€although€theÐ h+¸&* Ðappellant€was€not€entitled€to€a€pre„trial€hearing€on€the€reliability€of€mtDNA€analysis,€he€was€entitledÐ ° Ðto€receive€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis.€€We€also€hold€that€the€State€failed€toÐ œì Ðproperly€establish€the€chain€of€custody€for€the€hair€samples€taken€from€the€victim.€€We€reverse€theÐ ˆØ Ðappellantððs€convictions€and€sentences,€and€we€remand€this€case€to€the€Davidson€County€CriminalÐ tÄ ÐCourt€for€a€new€trial€on€both€counts€of€the€indictment.Ð `° ÐÌÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€APPELLATE€REVIEWó óÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àAlthough€we€are€presented€with€three€separate€issues€in€this€case,€all€of€these€issues€areÐ  ` Ðreviewed€under€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€appellate€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909Ð ü L  ÐS.W.2d€423,€431€(Tenn.€1995)€(reviewing€trial€courtððs€denial€of€defendantððs€request€for€appointmentÐ è 8  Ðof€a€psychiatric€expert€for€an€abuse€of€discretion);€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€472€n.1€(Tenn.Ð Ô$  Ð1997)€(reviewing€admission€of€DNA€evidence€for€an€abuse€of€discretion);€òòState€v.€Holbrooksóó,€983Ð À  ÐS.W.2d€697,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998)€(reviewing€chain€of€custody€issues€under€an€abuse€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðdiscretion€standard).€€While€ð ðÔ‡TX1XXX1Ôa€trial€courtððs€ruling€[under€this€standard]€will€be€upheld€so€long€asÐ ˜è  Ðreasonable€minds€can€disagree€as€to€propriety€of€the€decision€made,ðð€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Gillilandóó,€22Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.3d€266,€270€(Tenn.€2000)Ô#†X1XXTX1ÆW#Ô,€we€Ô‡TX1XXX1Ôwill€nevertheless€reverse€the€decision€if€ð ðthe€court€applied€anÐ pÀ Ðincorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€anÐ \¬ Ðinjustice€to€the€party€complaining,ðð€€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)Ô#†X1XXTX1 Y#Ô.Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òEXPERT€ASSISTANCE€IN€THE€FIELD€OF€DNA€ANALYSISó óÐ  p ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€first€issue€we€address€in€this€case€is€whether€the€appellant,€as€an€indigent€defendantÐ øH Ðcharged€with€a€non„capital€offense,€was€entitled€to€have€state„funded€expert€assistance€in€the€fieldÐ ä4 Ðof€DNA€analysis.€€Although€the€legislature€has€yet€to€specifically€authorize€expert€assistance€forÐ Ð  Ðindigent€defendants€charged€with€non„capital€offenses,€the€current€version€of€section€7€of€SupremeÐ ¼  ÐCourt€Rule€13€provides€for€the€payment€of€expert€assistance€ð ð[i]n€the€trial€and€direct€appeals€of€òòallóóÐ ¨ø Ðcriminal€cases€in€which€the€defendant€is€entitled€to€appointed€counsel€.€.€.€[when€such€services]€areÐ ”ä Ðnecessary€to€ensure€that€the€constitutional€rights€of€the€defendant€are€properly€protected.ðð€€(emphasisÐ €Ð Ðadded).€€As€the€language€of€Rule€13€indicates,€the€intention€of€this€Court€is€to€ensure€that€noÐ l¼ Ðdefendant€is€denied€the€protection€of€his€or€her€constitutional€rights€solely€because€of€indigency.€€AsÐ X ¨ Ðsuch,€the€language€of€Rule€13€serves€to€emphasize€that€the€need€for€expert€assistance€is€not€limitedÐ D!” Ðto€capital€cases€and€that€the€expert€assistance€sought€by€a€defendant€need€not€be€limited€to€aÐ 0"€  Ðparticular€field€of€expertise,€so€long€as€the€assistance€is€necessary€to€protect€the€defendantððsÐ #l! Ðconstitutional€rights.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€current€language€of€Rule€13€was€not€in€place€at€the€time€of€the€trial€courtððsÐ à%0!$ Ðdenial€of€expert€assistance€in€this€case,€òòóóthe€trial€court€was€certainly€not€without€authority€to€allowÐ Ì&"% Ðthe€appellant€the€benefit€of€expert€assistance€upon€a€showing€of€necessity.€€In€òòState€v.€Barnettóó,€909Ð ¸'#& ÐS.W.2d€423€(Tenn.€1995),€this€Court€held€that€due€process€of€law€principles€required€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappointment€of€expert€assistance€in€a€non„capital€case€when€the€defendant€is€able€to€show€that€suchÐ )à$( Ðassistance€is€necessary€to€conduct€a€constitutionally€adequate€defense.€€At€least€since€our€decisionÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€òòBarnettóó,€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôfrom€which€the€current€language€of€Rule€13€is€derived,€this€Court€has€been€clear€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðð ð[w]hile€a€State€need€not€provide€an€indigent€defendant€with€all€the€assistance€his€wealthierÐ ° Ðcounterpart€might€buy...fundamental€fairness€requires€a€State€to€provide€an€indigent€defendantÐ œì Ðwith€the€ððbasic€tools€of€an€adequate€defense€or€appeal.ðððð€€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€426€(quoting€òòAkeÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Oklahomaóó,€470€U.S.€68,€77€(1985)).€€Although€the€actual€holding€of€òòBarnettóó€was€concerned€withÐ tÄ Ðappointment€of€psychiatric€assistance,€our€reliance€on€ð ðthe€due€process€principle€of€fundamentalÐ `° Ðfairnessðð€to€reach€this€conclusion€was€a€clear€signal€that€types€of€assistance€other€than€psychiatricÐ L œ Ðassistance€should€be€provided€upon€a€showing€of€necessity.׃i×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòPARTICULARIZED€NEED€FOR€EXPERT€ASSISTANCEóóÐ  ` ÐÓÍgÓÌà  àOf€course,€to€say€that€the€trial€court€had€the€òòauthorityóó€to€appoint€expert€assistance€is€not€toÐ è 8  Ðsay€that€the€trial€court€in€this€case€had€the€òòobligationóó€to€do€so.€€The€obligation€of€a€court€to€afford€anÐ Ô$  Ðindigent€defendant€the€benefit€of€expert€assistance€does€not€arise€unless€the€defendant€makes€aÐ À  Ðthreshold€showing€of€a€ð ðparticularized€needðð€for€the€expert€assistance.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€atÐ ¬ü  Ð430„31.€€In€òòBarnettóó,€we€stated€that€before€the€right€to€assistance€of€state„funded€experts€arises,€ð ð[t]heÐ ˜è  Ðdefendant€must€show€that€a€substantial€need€exists€òòrequiringóó€the€assistance€of€state€paid€supportingÐ „Ô  Ðservices€and€that€his€defense€cannot€be€fully€developed€without€such€professional€assistance.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ Ðat€430€(emphasis€in€original).€€To€this€end,€we€adopted€the€following€two„pronged€test€to€determineÐ \¬ Ðwhether€the€defendant€has€made€the€threshold€showing€of€ð ðparticularized€needðð:€€(1)€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðmust€show€that€he€or€she€ð ðwill€be€deprived€of€a€fair€trial€without€the€expert€assistanceðð;€and€(2)€theÐ 4„ Ðdefendant€must€show€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€[the€assistance]€will€materially€assistÐ  p Ð[him€or€her]€in€the€preparation€of€[the]€case.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€making€this€threshold€showing,€however,€weÐ  \ Ðcautioned€defendants€thatÐ øH Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à[u]nsupported€assertions€that€[an]€expert€is€necessary€to€counter€the€Stateððs€proof€areÐ Ð  Ðnot€sufficient.€€The€defendant€must€demonstrate€by€reference€to€the€facts€andÐ ¼  Ðcircumstances€of€[the]€particular€case€that€appointment€of€a€psychiatric€expert€isÐ ¨ø Ðnecessary€to€insure€a€fair€trial.€€Whether€or€not€a€defendant€has€made€the€thresholdÐ ”ä Ðshowing€is€to€be€determined€on€a€case-by-case€basis,€and€in€determining€whether€aÐ €Ð Ðparticularized€need€has€been€established,€a€trial€court€should€consider€all€facts€andÐ l¼ Ðcircumstances€known€to€it€at€the€time€the€motion€for€expert€assistance€is€made.€€ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌÔf  ÔÔg ÔòòId.óó€at€431.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àBased€on€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€we€first€conclude€that€the€appellantÐ $X" Ðdemonstrated€a€particularized€need€for€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€evidence€at€the€time€ofÐ ô$D # Ðhis€request.€€Far€from€justifying€the€request€with€ð ðunsupported€assertions,ðð€the€appellantððs€counselÐ ° Ðlisted€in€meticulous€detail€the€reasons€needed€for€the€expert€assistance.€€For€instance,€the€appellantððsÐ œì Ðcounsel€stated€that€expert€assistance€was€needed€to€establish€a€familiarity€with€proper€DNA€protocolsÐ ˆØ Ðand€to€point€to€relevant€issues€and€lines€of€cross„examination.€€In€support€of€these€assertions,€counselÐ tÄ Ðoffered€expert€testimony€from€witnesses€who€stated€that€expert€assistance€in€this€area€was€absolutelyÐ `° Ðcrucial€to€competent€representation€given€that€the€subject€matter€was€inordinately€complex€andÐ L œ Ðbeyond€the€common€understanding€of€most€attorneys.׃~×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€One€of€the€appellantððs€experts€further€opinedÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€it€was€doubtful€that€the€appellantððs€attorney€could€even€know€the€relevant€issues€involved€inÐ $ t ÐDNA€analysis€without€some€type€of€expert€assistance.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àBeyond€general€assertions€of€need,€however,€the€appellant€also€established€that€because€theÐ è 8  ÐDNA€examinations€from€the€FBI€and€LabCorp€reached€inconsistent€results€regarding€the€donor€ofÐ Ô$  Ðthe€hair€samples,€expert€assistance€was€especially€needed€to€help€determine€whether€the€samplesÐ À  Ðwere€contaminated€and€why€the€appellant€was€apparently€excluded€as€a€donor€in€one€test€involvingÐ ¬ü  ÐPCR€analysis.€€Finally,€counsel€demonstrated€that€he€needed€expert€assistance€to€understand€whyÐ ˜è  Ðsome€reports€mentioned€that€the€samples€of€blood€from€the€appellantððs€clothing€contained€the€DNAÐ „Ô  Ðof€an€unidentified€third€person.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAs€required€by€òòBarnettóó,€counsel€sought€to€give€the€trial€court€precise€reasons€and€detailedÐ H˜ Ðexplanations€for€the€need€for€expert€assistance.€€òòCf.óó€òòState€v.€Edwardsóó,€868€S.W.2d€682,€698€(Tenn.Ð 4„ ÐCrim.€App.€1993)€(denying€expert€assistance€when€ð ð[t]he€stated€desire€for€ððassist[ance]€in€hisÐ  p Ðdefenseðð€or€for€ððinform[ation]€regarding€the€DNA€evidence€the€state€would€seek€to€introduceðð€wasÐ  \ Ðtoo€general€in€natureðð).€€He€detailed€his€efforts€to€become€proficient€in€this€area,€he€specified€hisÐ øH Ðefforts€to€locate€in„state€experts,€and€he€listed€the€particular€reasons€for€needing€assistance€despiteÐ ä4 Ðthese€efforts.€€As€such,€we€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€shown€that€expert€assistance€was€neededÐ Ð  Ðto€ensure€a€fair€trial.€€By€denying€the€appellant€expert€assistance€as€to€this€type€of€evidence,€the€trialÐ ¼  Ðcourt€deprived€the€appellant€of€a€meaningful€opportunity€to€defend€when€his€liberty€was€at€stake.€Ð ¨ø ÐòòCf.óó€òòBarnettóó,€909€S.W.2d€at€428.€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àSecond,€we€also€conclude€that€the€appellant€has€shown€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€the€expertÐ l¼ Ðassistance€would€be€of€material€help€in€the€preparation€of€his€case.€€Because€the€identity€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðoffender€was€the€only€real€issue€at€trial€and€because€the€juryððs€conclusion€as€to€the€weight€of€theÐ D!” ÐDNA€evidence€may€have€been€conclusive€as€to€its€determination€of€the€appellantððs€guilt,€expertÐ 0"€  Ðassistance€in€DNA€analysis€may€have€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôbeen€Ôf  ÔÔg Ôcrucial€to€a€successful€defense.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔIndeed,€it€was€only€withÔf  ÔÔg ÔÐ #l! Ðthe€DNA€evidenceÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€thatÔf  ÔÔg Ô€the€State€was€able€to€move€its€case€beyond€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôone€of€mere€circumstantialÐ $X" Ðevidence€of€guilt€to€one€establishing€a€substantial€andÔf  ÔÔg Ô€definite€connection€between€the€appellant€andÐ ô$D # ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔL.FÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€While€some€of€the€DNA€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ôtests€appear€to€be€exculpatoryÔf  ÔÔg Ô,€there€is€no€mistaking€the€importanceÐ à%0!$ ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔthisÔf  ÔÔg Ô€evidenceÔf  ÔÔg Ô€generallyÔf  ÔÔg Ô€to€the€Stateððs€case.Ôf  ÔÔg Ô׃x×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€For€these€reasons,€we€find€that€counsel€for€the€appellantÐ ° Ðhas€made€a€showing€that€ð ðthere€is€a€reasonable€likelihood€that€[the€assistance]€will€materially€assistÐ œì Ðhim€in€the€preparation€of€his€case.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€theÐ ˆØ Ðappellant€expert€assistance€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòHARMLESS€ERROR€ANALYSISóóÐ L œ ÐÓ€†ÓÌà  àAlthough€we€have€concluded€that€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€not€providing€theÐ $ t Ðappellant€with€a€state„funded€expert€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis,€we€must€nevertheless€examineÐ  ` Ðwhether€this€error€was€harmless.€€In€òòBarnettóó,€we€stated€that€the€right€of€an€indigent€defendant€toÐ ü L  Ðreceive€state„funded€expert€assistance€uponÔf  Ôò òÔg Ô€Ôf  Ôó óÔg Ôa€showing€of€particularized€need€was€grounded€inÐ è 8  Ðfundamental€principles€of€due€process€of€law.€€909€S.W.2d€at€428.€€Indeed,€we€said€that€ð ð[i]t€isÐ Ø(  Ðaxiomatic€that€fairness€cannot€exist€where€an€indigent€defendant€is€deprived€by€poverty€of€aÐ Ä  Ðmeaningful€opportunity€to€defend€when€[his€or€her]€liberty€is€at€stake.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€becauseÐ °  Ða€failure€to€provide€an€indigent€defendant€with€needed€expert€assistance€amounts€to€a€denial€of€dueÐ œì  Ðprocess€of€law,€we€must€use€the€constitutional€harmless€error€standard:€whether€the€error€complainedÐ ˆØ  Ðof€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòSeeóó€òòMomon€v.€Stateóó,€18€S.W.3d€152,€164,€167€(Tenn.Ð tÄ Ð2000).׃cì×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð `° ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€in€this€case,€we€are€unable€to€conclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubtÐ 8ˆ Ðthat€the€improper€denial€of€expert€assistance€had€no€appreciable€effect€upon€the€outcome€of€the€trial.€Ð $t ÐÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔFrom€our€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€aside€from€the€DNA€evidence,€the€State€did€not€have€anÐ ` Ðoverwhelming€case€of€circumstantial€evidence€establishing€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator.€€ForÐ üL Ðâ âexample,€while€the€victim€identified€the€appellant€at€trial,€she€could€not€identify€her€attacker€in€aÐ è8 Ðlineup€conducted€about€a€week€after€the€attack,׃y×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€she€testified€that€when€she€saw€her€attacker€onÐ ° Ðâ âthe€night€of€the€offense,€she€could€not€be€sure€what€he€looked€like.€€While€it€is€true€that€the€appellantÐ œì Ðwas€found€with€muddy€clothes€matching€the€victimððs€description€and€that€the€victim€showed€officersÐ ˆØ Ðthe€house€from€which€she€saw€the€appellant€leave€earlier€in€the€day,€these€two€facts€alone€can€hardlyÐ tÄ Ðbe€said€to€ð ðunerringly€point€the€finger€of€guilt€to€the€[appellant]€to€the€exclusion€of€all€others€beyondÐ `° Ða€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€òòCf.óó€òòHicks€v.€Stateóó,€490€S.W.2d€174,€178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àMoreover,€because€theÔf  ÔÔg Ô€DNA€evidence€appears€to€have€been€the€keystone€of€the€Stateððs€case,Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÐ $ t Ðan€expertððs€assistance€on€the€issues€concerning€the€anomalous€results€of€the€various€DNA€tests€couldÐ  ` Ðvery€well€have€made€a€difference€in€the€preparation€and€presentation€of€the€appellantððs€case€orÐ ü L  Ðotherwise€given€rise€to€reasonable€doubt€in€the€minds€of€the€jurors.€€It€is€especially€noteworthy€thatÐ è 8  Ðthe€appellantððs€experts€in€criminal€trial€practice€both€testified€that€such€expert€assistance€wasÐ Ô$  Ðð ðabsolutely€criticalðð€to€competent€representation€in€this€area€given€that€the€procedures€and€protocolsÐ À  Ðfor€DNA€testing€are€extremely€complex.€€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔFor€all€ofÔf  ÔÔg Ô€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€courtððs€failureÐ ¬ü  Ðto€provide€expert€assistance€to€the€appellant€in€the€field€of€DNA€analysis€was€not€harmless€beyondÐ ˜è  Ða€reasonable€doubt€and€that€a€new€trial€is€required€to€ensure€that€the€appellant€is€afforded€due€processÐ „Ô  Ðof€law.Ð pÀ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓPRETRIAL€HEARING€ON€THE€RELIABILITY€OF€MtDNA€ANALYSISó óÐ H˜ ÐÓ×–ÓÌà  àThe€second€issue€we€have€been€asked€to€address€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€holdingÐ  p Ða€pretrial€hearing€to€determine€the€general€reliability€of€mtDNA€analysis€before€allowing€suchÐ  \ Ðevidence€to€be€submitted€to€the€jury.€€Quoting€language€from€our€decision€in€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÐ øH ÐTransp.€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257,€265€(Tenn.€1997),€the€appellant€argues€that€ð ðÔ‡\X1XXX1Ôthe€burden€placed€on€trialÐ ä4 Ðcourts€to€analyze€and€to€screen€novel€scientific€evidence€is€a€significant€oneÔ#†X1XX\X1ø˜#Ô.ðð€€He€further€argues€thatÐ Ð  Ðnothing€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€24„7„117€relieves€the€burden€on€trial€courts€toÐ ¼  Ðindependently€determine€the€reliability€of€new€DNA€testing€techniques.€€The€State€argues,€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðother€hand,€that€section€Ô‡\X1XXX1Ô24„7„117Ô#†X1XX\X1çš#Ô€deems€this€type€of€DNA€analysis€to€be€ð ðstatutorily€reliableðð€forÐ ”ä Ðpurposes€of€evidentiary€admission,€and€that€as€such,€no€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€to€determine€the€reliabilityÐ €Ð Ðof€the€evidence€was€needed.€€We€agree€with€the€State€and€hold€that€the€trial€court€properly€admittedÐ l¼ Ðthe€evidence€of€mtDNA€analysis€without€first€holding€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€to€establish€the€reliabilityÐ X ¨ Ðof€this€method€of€proving€identification.€Ð D!” ÐÌòòÓ  ÓMtDNA€ANALYSIS€GENERALLYóóÐ #l! ÐÓHÓÌà  àBefore€discussing€the€need€for€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€in€this€case,€it€may€be€helpful€to€provideÐ ô$D # Ðsome€general€background€concerning€mtDNA€analysis.׃e×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Generally€speaking,€every€cell€contains€€twoÐ à%0!$ Ðtypes€of€DNA€material:€€nuclear€DNA€and€mitochondrial€DNA.€€Nuclear€DNA€material€is€found€inÐ ° Ðthe€nucleus€of€the€cell,€and€the€analysis€of€nuclear€DNA€is€the€traditional€form€of€DNA€analysis€withÐ œì Ðwhich€most€people€are€now€commonly€familiar.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€473„74Ð ˆØ Ð(Tenn.€1997)€(generally€discussing€nuclear€DNA€analysis).€€With€analysis€of€an€individualððs€nuclearÐ tÄ ÐDNA€profile,€the€possibility€exists€that€each€individual,€with€the€exception€of€identical€twins,€hasÐ `° Ða€unique€profile€with€respect€to€anyone€else€in€the€world.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àBy€way€of€contrast,€mtDNA€comes€from€mitochondria€in€cells,€and€analysis€of€mtDNAÐ $ t Ðprovides€significantly€less€ability€to€discriminate€among€possible€donors.€€For€example,€becauseÐ  ` ÐmtDNA€is€only€inherited€from€the€mother,€all€maternal€relatives€will€share€the€same€mtDNA€profile.€Ð ü L  ÐThe€final€result€in€mtDNA€typing€analysis€is€that€the€defendant€is€either€excluded€as€a€possibleÐ è 8  Ðcontributor€of€the€genetic€material€or€he€or€she€is€included€within€the€class€of€possible€contributors.׃jÜ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РÔ$  ÐBecause€it€is€not€possible€to€achieve€the€extremely€high€level€of€exclusion€provided€by€nuclear€DNA,Ð À  ÐmtDNA€typing€has€been€said€to€be€a€test€more€of€exclusion€than€one€of€identification.Ô‡\X1XXX1ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àNevertheless,€mtDNA€typing€has€several€advantages€Ô#†X1XX\X1ý¤#Ôover€traditional€nuclear€DNA€typing.€Ð „Ô  ÐFirst,€while€any€given€cell€contains€only€one€nucleus,€that€same€cell€may€contain€hundreds€orÐ pÀ Ðthousands€of€mitochondria€from€which€to€conduct€analysis.€€MtDNA,€therefore,€can€be€obtainedÐ \¬ Ðfrom€some€sources€that€nuclear€DNA€cannot,€such€as€from€bone,€teeth,€or€hair€shafts.€€Moreover,Ð H˜ ÐmtDNA€can€be€obtained€from€small€amounts€of€material,€from€degraded€material,€or€even€from€deadÐ 4„ Ðcells.€Ð  p ÐÌà  àMtDNA€analysis€does€have€some€shortcomings,€however.€€The€most€important€of€these€isÐ øH Ðthe€extreme€sensitivity€of€the€material,€which€renders€it€particularly€susceptible€to€contamination.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€Stateððs€expert€admitted€that€all€who€handle€mtDNA€must€be€cognizant€of€the€greater€potentialÐ Ð  Ðfor€contamination€and€that€in€any€mtDNA€laboratory,€the€contamination€controls€must€be€heightened.€Ð ¼  ÐThe€potential€for€contamination€seems€to€be€greatest€when€the€mtDNA€is€exposed€to€other€organicÐ ¨ø Ðmaterials€or€fluids.€€Moreover,€the€available€database€of€mtDNA€sequences,€to€which€mtDNAÐ ”ä Ðprofiles€are€compared€to€identify€whether€a€particular€profile€commonly€occurs€within€theÐ €Ð Ðpopulation,€is€relatively€small€when€compared€to€the€database€compiled€for€nuclear€DNA€profiles.€Ð ° ÐAlthough€the€smaller€size€of€the€database€is€due€to€the€relative€infancy€of€forensic€mtDNA€analysis,Ð œì Ðthe€ability€to€identify€common€types€of€mtDNA€profiles€in€the€general€population€is€certainly€moreÐ ˆØ Ðrestricted€than€that€of€traditional€nuclear€DNA€analysis.€Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòTHE€NEED€FOR€A€òòóóMcDANIELóó€òòHEARING€ON€THE€RELIABILITY€Ð L œ ÐOF€MtDNA€ANALYSISóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àIn€Tennessee,€the€admissibility€of€expert€testimony€as€to€scientific€or€technical€evidence€isÐ  ` Ðgoverned€by€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€702€and€703.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Coleyóó,€__€S.W.3d€__,€__Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Begleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€471,€475€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSXÐ è 8  ÐTransportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2d€257€(Tenn.€1997),€this€Court€outlined€the€procedures€by€which€trialÐ Ô$  Ðcourts€were€to€determine€the€admissibility€of€scientific€evidence€under€these€rules.€€As€we€haveÐ À  Ðrecently€stated€in€òòColeyóó,€these€procedures€are€as€follows:Ô‡TX1XXX1ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àFirst,€the€evidence€must€be€relevant€to€a€fact€at€issue€in€the€case.€€Second,€the€expertÐ „Ô  Ðmust€be€qualified€by€specialized€knowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€educationÐ pÀ Ðin€the€field€of€expertise,€and€the€testimony€in€question€must€substantially€assist€theÐ \¬ Ðtrier€of€fact€to€understand€the€evidence€or€determine€a€fact€in€issue.€€Finally,€when€theÐ H˜ Ðexpert€witness€offers€an€opinion€or€states€an€inference,€the€underlying€facts€or€dataÐ 4„ Ðupon€which€the€expert€relied€must€be€trustworthy.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌ__€S.W.3d€at€__€(citations€omitted);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBegleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€475.€€Ô#†X1XXTX1ë¯#ÔÐ øH ÐÌà  àAs€is€clear€from€the€òòóóopinion€itself,€the€principal€purpose€of€holding€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€isÐ Ð  Ðto€determine€whether€the€proffered€scientific€or€technical€evidence€is€trustworthy€and€reliable.€Ð ¼  ÐIndeed,€all€of€the€factors€listed€by€òòMcDanielóó€to€evaluate€the€proffered€evidence€are€used€only€for€theÐ ¨ø Ðpurpose€of€determining€the€reliability€of€the€scientific€evidence.€€òòId.óó€at€265€(stating€that€ð ð[a]Ð ”ä ÐTennessee€trial€court€may€consider€[the€following€non„exclusive€list€of€factors]€in€determiningÐ €Ð Ðreliabilityðð).€€òòCf.óó€òòColeyóó,€__€S.W.3d€at€__€(citing€òòMcDanielóó€as€the€test€for€establishing€the€reliabilityÐ l¼ Ðof€proffered€expert€testimony).€€As€such,€where€the€general€reliability€of€scientific€evidence€is€notÐ X ¨ Ðcontested€or€is€not€otherwise€an€issue€in€the€case,€the€need€to€hold€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€does€not€arise.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€admission€of€scientific€or€technical€evidence€relating€to€DNA€analysis,Ð #l! ÐTennessee€is€among€a€handful€of€states€that€have€addressed€this€issue€by€statute.׃h×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€1991,€theÐ $X" ÐGeneral€Assembly€enacted€a€statute€to€admit€DNA€evidence€ð ðwithout€antecedent€expert€testimonyÐ ° Ðthat€DNA€analysis€provides€a€trustworthy€and€reliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€in€anÐ œì Ðindividualððs€genetic€material.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€24-7-117(b)€(1994).€€This€statute€conditions€fullÐ ˆØ Ðadmission€of€DNA€analysis€into€evidence,€however,€ð ðupon€a€showing€that€the€offered€testimonyÐ tÄ Ðmeets€the€standards€of€admissibility€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àNeither€party€disputes€that€mtDNA€analysis€falls€within€the€definition€of€ð ðDNA€analysisðð€as€Ð 8 ˆ Ðprovided€in€the€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg ÔstatuteÔf  ÔÔg Ô.׃nÀ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Rather,€the€appellant€asserts€that€section€24„7„117€does€not€eliminate€theÐ $ t Ðneed€for€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€on€the€reliability€of€mtDNA€analysis.€€According€to€the€appellant,Ð  ` Ðnothing€in€section€24„7„117€alleviates€the€ð ðsignificantðð€burden€of€trial€courts€to€ð ðanalyze€and€toÐ ü L  Ðscreen€novel€scientific€evidence.ðð€€While€we€agree€with€the€appellant€that€trial€courts€have€aÐ è 8  Ðsignificant€burden€to€analyze€and€screen€novel€scientific€evidence,€we€disagree€that€this€fact€compelsÐ Ô$  Ða€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€with€respect€to€this€type€of€evidence.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAs€this€Court€stated€in€òòBegleyóó€with€regard€to€PCR€DNA€analysis,€Ð ˜è  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àBecause€the€DNA€evidence€at€issue€here€is€governed€by€[Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ pÀ Ðsection]€24-7-117,€the€evidence€is€statutorily€regarded€as€trustworthy€and€reliable.€Ð \¬ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€[section]€24-7-117€exempts€DNA€evidence€from€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€determination€under€Rule€703€of€whether€it€provides€a€trustworthy€and€reliableÐ 4„ Ðmethod€of€identifying€characteristics€in€an€individualððs€genetic€material.€Ð  p ÐConsequently,€a€judicial€determination€of€the€scientific€reliability€of€the€evidence€isÐ  \ Ðunnecessary.ÐøHÐ Ð  ÐÌ956€S.W.2d€at€477.€€Because€the€very€purpose€of€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€is€to€determine€the€òòreliabilityóóÐ Ð  Ðof€scientific€or€technical€evidence,€it€would€make€little€sense€for€this€Court€to€require€such€a€hearingÐ ¼  Ðfor€evidence€that€is€statutorily€admissible€without€antecedent€testimony€that€it€is€a€reliable€methodÐ ¨ø Ðof€identification.€€While€such€DNA€evidence€must€satisfy€the€other€admission€standards€of€the€RulesÐ ”ä Ðbefore€it€is€properly€considered€by€the€jury,€the€statute€clearly€exempts€such€evidence€from€a€judicialÐ ° Ðdetermination€of€its€general€reliability€as€a€method€of€proving€identification.Ð œì ÐÌà  àBased€upon€our€own€examination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€not€errÐ tÄ Ðin€admitting€evidence€of€mtDNA€analysis€without€first€holding€a€pretrial€hearing€to€establish€itsÐ `° Ðgeneral€reliability€as€a€method€of€identification.€€The€evidence€of€mtDNA€analysis€was€clearlyÐ L œ Ðrelevant€as€the€evidence€tended€to€make€more€probable€the€fact€that€the€appellant€was€the€perpetratorÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€In€addition,€the€witness€proffering€the€evidence€was€qualifiedÐ $ t Ðand€accepted€by€the€court€as€an€expert€with€ð ðknowledge,€skill,€experience,€training,€or€educationððÐ  ` Ðin€this€field,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€702,€and€the€expertððs€specialized€knowledge€no€doubt€substantiallyÐ ü L  Ðassisted€the€jury€in€determining€the€identity€of€the€perpetrator,€òòid.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBegleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€atÐ è 8  Ð477.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€of€mtDNA€analysis€met€the€general€standards€under€theÐ Ô$  ÐRules€of€Evidence€concerning€the€admission€of€scientific€or€technical€evidence.€€Furthermore,Ð À  Ðbecause€the€mtDNA€evidence€is€statutorily€deemed€to€be€reliable,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€failingÐ ¬ü  Ðto€hold€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing.€€òòCf.óó€òòBegleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€477.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€responds€by€asserting€that€section€24„7„117€itself€conditions€admissibility€ofÐ pÀ Ðthe€DNA€evidence€upon€a€showing€that€the€evidence€meets€the€standards€of€admissibility€set€forthÐ \¬ Ðin€the€Rules€of€Evidence.€€He€then€argues€that€because€Rule€703€and€òòMcDanielóó€both€require€the€trialÐ H˜ Ðcourt€to€make€a€threshold€finding€of€reliability€before€admitting€the€evidence,€our€interpretation€ofÐ 4„ Ðthe€statute€ð ðrelieve[s]€the€State€of€its€obligation€to€establish€the€reliability€of€the€methodologyðð€ofÐ  p ÐmtDNA€evidence€under€those€two€authorities.€€More€specifically,€the€appellant€claims€that€beforeÐ  \ Ðsuch€evidence€was€admissible€under€Rule€702€and€òòMcDanielóó,€the€State€should€have€established€theÐ øH Ðfollowing:€(1)€that€the€procedures€for€mtDNA€analysis€had€been€tested;€(2)€that€the€evidence€hadÐ ä4 Ðbeen€subjected€to€peer€review€or€publication;€(3)€whether€the€potential€rate€of€error€was€known;€(4)Ð Ð  Ðthat€the€mitochondrial€technique€of€DNA€evidence€was€generally€accepted€in€the€scientificÐ ¼  Ðcommunity;€and€(5)€that€FBI€Agent€Mark€Wilson€had€conducted€any€research€in€this€fieldÐ ¨ø Ðindependent€of€litigation.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€appellant€is€correct€that€trial€courts€generally€have€a€duty€to€ensure€thatÐ l¼ Ðscientific€evidence€is€reliable,€he€apparently€overlooks€the€plain€language€of€section€24„7„117,€whichÐ X ¨ Ðclearly€dispenses€with€the€need€to€establish€that€the€analysis€ð ðprovides€a€trustworthy€and€reliableÐ D!” Ðmethod€of€identifying€characteristics€in€an€individualððs€genetic€material.ðð€€As€such,€the€statute€isÐ 0"€  Ðmore€properly€read€to€mean€that€evidence€of€DNA€analysis€is€admissible€ð ðupon€a€showing€that€theÐ #l! Ðevidence€òòotherwiseóó€meets€the€standards€of€admissibility€set€forth€in€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ $X" ÐEvidence.ðð€€We€decline€to€interpret€section€24„7„117€in€the€manner€suggested€by€the€appellant,€asÐ ô$D # Ðthis€result€would€defeat€the€obvious€purpose€of€the€statute€in€minimizing€litigation€concerning€theÐ à%0!$ Ðgeneral€reliability€of€DNA€analysis€as€a€method€of€proving€identification.Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  Ôò òÔg ÔÐ Ì&"% ÐÔf  Ôó óÔg ÔÌà  àOf€course,€to€say€that€the€results€of€DNA€analysis€are€generally€admissible€without€expertÐ ¤(ô#' Ðâ âtestimony€that€the€results€provide€a€reliable€method€of€identification€is€not€to€say€that€the€appellantÐ )à$( Ðcould€not€challenge€the€particular€tests€at€issue€in€this€case.׃m×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€section€24„7„117(c)€indicates,€theÐ ° Ðâ âstatute€was€carefully€drafted€to€ensure€that€it€would€not€be€ð ðconstrued€as€prohibiting€any€party€in€aÐ œì Ðcivil€or€criminal€trial€from€offering€proof€that€DNA€analysis€does€not€provide€a€trustworthy€andÐ ˆØ Ðreliable€method€of€identifying€characteristics€in€an€individualððs€genetic€material.ðð€€Moreover,€theÐ tÄ Ðstatute€is€clear€that€it€does€not€ð ðprohibit€a€party€from€cross-examining€the€other€partyððs€expert€as€toÐ `° Ðthe€lack€of€trustworthiness€and€reliability€of€such€analysis.ðð€€Because€the€statute€does€not€precludeÐ L œ Ðquestions€as€to€the€particular€reliability€of€the€mtDNA€evidence€in€any€given€case,€we€hold€that€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðtrial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€failing€to€hold€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€to€determine€theÐ $ t Ðreliability€of€mtDNA€analysis€as€a€method€of€identification.Ð  ` ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCHAIN€OF€CUSTODY€OF€THE€HAIR€SAMPLESó óÐ è 8  ÐÌÓ˜ÙÓà  àAlthough€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€evidence€of€mtDNA€analysisÐ À  Ðwithout€first€holding€a€òòMcDanielóó€hearing€to€establish€the€general€reliability€of€the€type€of€evidence,Ð ¬ü  Ðthe€appellant€goes€further€to€assert€that€the€trial€court€committed€reversible€error€in€admitting€theÐ ˜è  Ðparticular€mtDNA€evidence€in€this€case.€€He€maintains€that€because€the€State€failed€to€establish€aÐ „Ô  Ðproper€chain€of€custody€for€the€hairs€taken€from€the€victim,€the€particular€evidence€in€this€case€wasÐ pÀ Ðnot€properly€authenticated€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€901(a).€€Ô‡\X1XXX1ÔWe€agree.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAs€required€by€Rule€of€Evidence€901(a),€it€is€ð ðwell-established€that€as€a€condition€precedentÐ 4„ Ðto€the€introduction€of€tangible€evidence,€a€witness€must€be€able€to€identify€the€evidence€or€establishÐ  p Ðan€unbroken€chain€of€custody.ðð€Ôf  ÔÔg ÔòòState€v.€Holbrooksóó,€983€S.W.2d€697,€701€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998);Ôf  ÔÔg ÔÐ  \ Ðòòsee€also,€e.g.óó,Ôf  ÔÔg Ô€òòÔ#†X1XX\X1œÜ#ÔÔ‡\X1XXX1ÔState€v.€Cameronóó,€909€S.W.2d€836,€850€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€The€purpose€of€theÐ øH Ðchain€of€custody€requirement€is€ð ðto€demonstrate€that€there€has€been€no€tampering,€loss,€substitution,Ð ä4 Ðor€mistake€with€respect€to€the€evidence.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bradenóó,€867€S.W.2d€750,€759€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1993).€€The€identity€of€tangible€evidence,€however,€need€not€be€proven€beyond€all€possibilityÐ ¼  Ðof€doubt,€€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Hollomanóó,€835€S.W.2d€42,€46€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992),€and€the€State€is€notÐ ¨ø Ðrequired€to€establish€facts€which€exclude€every€possibility€of€tampering,€€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€741Ð ”ä ÐS.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€evidence€may€be€admitted€when€the€circumstancesÐ €Ð Ðsurrounding€the€evidence€reasonably€establish€the€identity€of€the€evidence€and€its€integrity.€Ð l¼ ÐòòHollomanóó,€835€S.W.2d€at€46.Ô#†X1XX\X1ÏÞ#Ô€€Absent€sufficient€proof€of€the€chain€of€custody,€however,€theÐ X ¨ Ðð ðevidence€should€not€be€admitted€.€.€.€unless€both€identity€and€integrity€can€be€demonstrated€by€otherÐ D!” Ðappropriate€means.ðð€€Neil€P.€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€901.12,€at€624€(3d€ed.Ð 0"€  Ð1995).€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€appellant€maintains€that€the€State€failed€to€properly€establish€the€chain€of€custody€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðhairs€removed€from€the€victim€because€the€State€could€introduce€no€proof€of€how€the€hairs€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðmounted€on€the€glass€slides€for€examination.€€At€trial,€the€State€introduced€evidence€establishingÐ Ì&"% Ðmost€of€the€links€in€the€chain€of€custody.€€For€example,€the€nurse€practitioner€who€examined€theÐ ¸'#& Ðvictim€testified€that€she€placed€all€of€these€hairs€collected€from€the€victim€into€a€single€envelope.€Ð ° ÐA€police€detective,€Steve€Kleek,€then€testified€that€he€took€the€victimððs€rape€kit€with€the€hairs€to€theÐ œì ÐTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€for€analysis€and€that€he€later€regained€custody€of€the€hairs€fromÐ ˆØ Ðthe€TBI.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àDetective€Kleek€also€testified€that€he€was€responsible€for€sending€the€hairs€to€the€FBI€forÐ L œ ÐDNA€analysis,€and€prior€to€sending€the€hairs€to€the€FBI,€the€detective€noted€that€only€two€hairs€wereÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontained€in€the€envelope.€€When€the€FBI€returned€the€hairs€to€detective€Kleek,€however,€he€notedÐ $ t Ðthat€two€hairs€were€now€mounted€on€glass€slides€for€use€in€a€microscope.€€The€detective€testified€thatÐ  ` Ðhe€then€sent€the€mounted€hairs€for€analysis€to€LabCorp,€who€confirmed€that€the€hairs€were€alreadyÐ ü L  Ðmounted€on€slides€when€they€were€received.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWe€agree€with€the€appellant€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€hair€samples€wereÐ À  Ðproperly€authenticated.€€The€hairs€were€not€identified€by€a€witness€with€knowledge€that€the€mountedÐ ¬ü  Ðhair€samples€were€the€same€hairs€as€the€ones€originally€taken€from€the€victim.€€Further,€we€can€findÐ ˜è  Ðno€evidence€whatsoever€to€show€how€the€hairs€came€to€be€mounted€on€the€slides.€€We€also€can€findÐ „Ô  Ðno€evidence€to€show€who€mounted€the€hairs€on€the€slides€or€whether€the€hairs€were€mounted€in€aÐ pÀ Ðmanner€sufficiently€free€of€contamination€or€alteration.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Although€the€hairs€were€apparentlyÐ \¬ Ðmounted€on€glass€slides€by€someone€with€the€FBI,€no€one€was€able€to€establish€this€important€ð ðlinkððÐ H˜ Ðin€the€chain€of€custody.€€Without€this€knowledge,€it€is€impossible€to€know€whether€anyone€tamperedÐ 4„ Ðwith€the€evidence,€or€whether€anyone€had€the€opportunity€to€ð ðconfuse,€misplace,€damage,€substitute,Ð  p Ðlose,€[or]€replaceðð€the€hairs€at€issue.€€òòCf.óó€Cohen,€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€at€623„24.€Ð  \ ÐBecause€reasonable€people€cannot€disagree€that€the€State€failed€to€establish€this€important€ð ðlinkðð€inÐ øH Ðthe€chain,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€analysis€of€the€hair€samples€withoutÐ ä4 Ðreasonably€establishing€their€identity€and€integrity.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€901(a).Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ¼  Ðà  àWe€note€that€while€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€this€case€also€found€a€ð ðððmissing€linkððÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€chain,ðð€the€intermediate€court€found€this€error€to€be€harmless.€€Although€our€holding€that€theÐ ”ä Ðtrial€court€erred€in€admitting€the€mtDNA€evidence€would€normally€require€this€Court€to€examineÐ €Ð Ðwhether€the€error€affirmatively€appears€to€have€affected€the€outcome€of€the€trial,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð l¼ ÐP.€52(a),€we€decline€to€reach€any€determination€on€this€issue€at€this€timeÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô€becauseÔf  ÔÔg Ô€we€have€reversedÐ X ¨ Ðthe€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences€on€other€groundsÔf  ÔÔg ÔÔf  ÔÔg Ô.€€We€emphasize€that€before€the€evidenceÐ D!” Ðis€admitted€at€any€retrial,€the€State€mustÔf  ÔÔg Ô€establish€a€proper€chain€of€custodyÔf  ÔÔg Ô.Ð 0"€  ÐÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ $X" ÐÌÓGõÓà  àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€appellant€was€improperly€denied€expert€assistance€in€the€fieldÐ à%0!$ Ðof€DNA€analysis.€€Because€we€are€unable€to€say€that€this€error€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÐ Ì&"% Ðdoubt,€we€reverse€the€appellantððs€convictions€and€sentences.€€We€also€hold€that€the€appellant€was€notÐ ¸'#& Ðentitled€to€a€pretrial€hearing€on€the€general€reliability€of€mtDNA€analysis€as€a€method€ofÐ ° Ðidentification€because€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€24„7„117€exempts€this€type€of€evidenceÐ œì Ðfrom€a€general€determination€of€reliability€under€òòMcDaniel€v.€CSX€Transportation,€Inc.óó,€955€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð257€(Tenn.€1997).€€Finally,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€the€State€properlyÐ tÄ Ðestablished€a€chain€of€custody€for€the€hairs€taken€from€the€victim.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ `° ÐCriminal€Appeals€is€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€in€part,€and€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€DavidsonÐ L œ ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€for€a€new€trial€on€both€counts€of€the€indictment.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àIt€appearing€from€the€record€that€the€appellant€is€indigent,€costs€of€this€appeal€are€assessedÐ  ` Ðto€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü L  ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàˆÌÌÌÔf  ÔÔg Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àà Ð à¼à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÔf  ÔÔg Ô