HERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. OPINION This case presents the question of whether the admission of expert testimony about a DNA-comparison analysis violates the Confrontation Clause when the analysis is based on computer-generated data from the expert’s laboratory and data from another laboratory. We agree with the court of appeals that it does not, and we will affirm its judgment. FACTS The Offense On February 27, 2000, the victim and four of her friends traveled from Port Arthur to Houston to go to the rodeo. They checked into their hotel around 10:00 p.m. and decided to ride around the Richmond/Westheimer area, which the victim described as a “drag” that people would “drive up and down.” The group drove around until about 2:30 a.m., at which point they stopped at a 24-hour diner called Mama’s Café so some of them could go to the restroom before going back to the hotel. When the victim returned and started to get into her car, a man in a hooded sweatshirt approached her and asked for a cigarette. Before she could respond that she did not smoke, the man told her, “Let me have your car,” and she felt something pushing against her side. It was a gun. The man pushed her into the car and across the center console into the passenger seat. After a second man entered the car and sat down in the backseat, the first man drove the car away. While they were driving, the victim was forced into the backseat, and the man in the backseat sexually assaulted her. The victim testified that the two people who kidnapped her met up with two more people, and three of them sexually assaulted her at gun point while she was blindfolded. Eventually they stopped and drove away, leaving her in an empty field. The victim walked to a nearby business and asked someone to call the police. When police arrived, they took her to the hospital where a nurse performed an examination, collected samples, and took the victim’s clothes. The evidence was outsourced to Reliagene for genetic testing, and the DNA profile it developed was entered into CODIS, but police were not able to identify a suspect until 2017 when Appellant voluntarily gave a cheek swab to the Houston Police Department. Appellant was subsequently indicted for aggravated sexual assault and convicted based on a DNA analyst’s testimony that the profile developed from the victim’s clothing by Reliagene was probably Appellant’s because the chances that a random person other than Appellant was the contributor were in the trillions and quadrillions. Forensic Evidence The sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) collected samples during the examination: a reference blood sample, a pulled head and pulled pubic hair, a loose head hair, vaginal swab(s) and smear(s),[1] right and left-hand fingernail scrapings, two cuttings from an undergarment, a nasal sample, oral swab(s) and smear(s),[2] and two items of “loose evidence collection.” When the SANE kit was sent for testing in 2003, the biological section of the Houston Police Department Crime Lab was closed due to quality control issues, so the SANE kit was outsourced to a private-sector laboratory called Reliagene. In processing the evidence, analysts at Reliagene were able to obtain epithelial-cell and sperm-cell fractions from the vaginal swab(s) and two undergarment cuttings. From those, they were able to develop two DNA profiles. The profile developed from the epithelial-cell fraction found on the vaginal swab(s) was consistent with the victim’s known profile, but the other profile was from an unknown donor. A suspect had not yet been identified. Thirteen years later, Appellant agreed to give a buccal swab for testing. That swab was sent to the Houston Forensic Science Center and processed by Lloyd Halsell, III. Halsell compared the DNA profile he generated from the buccal swab to the DNA profile developed by Reliagene. His analysis showed that the sperm-cell fraction on the vaginal swab(s) was unsuitable for comparison due to insufficient data, but the following information was obtained, which overwhelmingly indicates that the unknown profile developed by the Reliagene analysts was probably Appellant’s: Item TestedResults Epithelial-cell fraction from undergarment cutting #1The probability that a randomly chosen unrelated individual would be included as a possible contributor to this partial DNA profile is approximately,
1 in 170 trillion for Caucasians, 1 in 20 quadrillion for African Americans, 1 in 26 trillion for Hispanics, and 1 in 1.2 quadrillion for Asians Epithelial-cell fraction from undergarment cutting #2The probability that a randomly chosen unrelated individual would be included as a possible contributor to the major component is approximately
