With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that because the nylon mask and other items that were later subjected to DNA testing were stored in the same place as items that were taken from his home, there was a possibility that the DNA analysis was conducted on a mixed sample and, therefore, the DNA evidence should be excluded. The trial court rejected the defendant’s argument and pointed out that there was “no evidence” that the items taken from the defendant’s home were “somehow commingled” with the nylon mask. We agree with the defendant that if the DNA results presented to the jury were based on the analysis of a known mixed sample, the State would be required to explain how the presence of DNA from another individual would affect the statistical analysis. See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 3 P.3d 999, 1003-04 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ayers, 68 P.3d 768, 775 (Mont. 2003)

A: recognizing that in prior decisions the court had used the term inconclusive to mean that dna evidence did not exclude an individual but clarifying that in the future the term inconclusive would be used only when a dna sample does not contain enough dna to draw a conclusion dna is degraded or for other reasons a dna test yields no results or the examiner draws no conclusion
B: holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence
C: holding that frye test for admissibility was satisfied because expert used likelihood ratios to explain results of dna tests conducted on known mixed samples
D: holding that there was no ineffective assistance for failing to hire a dna expert because the defenses theory was that the defendants dna was planted so the dna evidence would not seem to be an issue
C.