Appeals court hears challenge to sufficiency of DNA and shoe-print evidence in Ortiz burglary case

A three-justice panel of the Appeals Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Ortiz (24P13644) about whether the DNA found on a latex glove and a shoe print are sufficient, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, to support convictions for breaking and entering at night, malicious destruction of property and larceny of a firearm.

The central legal question, counsel and the court framed, is the sufficiency of portable-DNA evidence and the probative value of a shoe impression when the prosecution lacks direct proof of when DNA was deposited or direct measurements of the defendant's shoe. Attorney Kevin Dimelo, representing appellant Mitchell Ortiz, told the panel that "although mister Ortiz's DNA was found on a glove near the robbery, DNA evidence found on a portable item ... is not sufficient without additional evidence that the perpetrator placed the DNA on the…