in several appellate opinions not designated for publication. State v. Smith, 100 Wash.App. 1064, 2000 WL 688180 (Wash. Ct.App.2000); State v. Ware, 1999 WL 233592 (Tenn.Crim.App.1999); Sheckells v. Texas, 2001 WL 1178828 (Tex.Ct.App.2001). 11 . Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 10-915 ol the Maryland Code precludes generalized challenges to the admissibility of DNA evidence, except for constitutional challenges. Armstead, 342 Md. at 66, 673 A.2d 221. MtDNA evidence has only recently come into general use in the forensic field; therefore, we do not think the legislature contemplated the blanket admission of new types of DNA without the evidence and process from which it is derived being subject to a Frye-Reed inquiry. See State v. Gross, 134 Md.App. 528, 760 A.2d 725 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 12 . MtDNA from an individual can be
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 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 holding that dna pcr evidence not covered by statute and requiring the evidence be subjected to the inquiry outlined in reed recognizing universal acceptance in the scientific community of the principles and techniques on which dna typing and pcr replication are based holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless