High Court OKs DNA as Evidence : Crime: State justices let stand appellate ruling that allowed use of genetic fingerprinting to convict a woman of murder.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases, refusing to hear claims that “genetic fingerprinting” has not been shown scientifically reliable.

The justices, over one dissent, let stand a precedent-setting state appeals court ruling upholding the admissibility of DNA evidence against a Ventura County woman linked to a murder through strands of hair found at the crime scene.

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is genetic material that is unique to the individual. By comparing a suspect’s DNA pattern with samples of blood, semen or human tissue at a crime scene, investigators have been able to offer evidence of guilt--or innocence.

Prosecutors around the country have relied increasingly on DNA testing. By recent count, high courts in eight states have upheld its use as evidence, while such courts in Massachusetts and Minnesota have turned it down. Thursday’s action marked the first time the issue has reached the California Supreme Court.

In the case before the court, police charged Lynda Patricia Axell with the fatal stabbing of George White, a restaurant employee, in 1988. Evidence linking Axell’s DNA with hair found at the crime scene was the sole proof used against the woman. Laboratory analysts said the odds that the hair came from someone other than Axell were 1 in 6 billion.

In a non-jury trial, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Storch found Axell guilty of murder and attempted robbery and sentenced her to 25 years to life in prison.

Last October, a state appeals panel in Ventura upheld the use of DNA evidence against Axell, finding the technique was generally accepted in the scientific community and thus permissible in criminal cases. State Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren hailed the decision, saying it would help put law enforcement on “equal footing” with criminals.

In an appeal to the state high court, Sharon M. Jones, a lawyer for Axell, urged that the appellate ruling be overturned. The reliability of genetic fingerprinting can be jeopardized by faulty testing procedures, Jones said, and there was no scientific consensus about the proper methods of calculating statistical probabilities of DNA matchups.

The justices issued a brief order denying review. Only Justice Edward A. Panelli voted to hear the case. Four votes from the seven-member court are required for review.