could not be excluded. If, however, the blood on the box spring is from a mixed sample, i.e., from more than one donor, then defendant cannot be excluded. The reason is that the 4 allele, which defendant possessed, was present in the blood stain. Based on other evidence, the prosecution established that the box-spring stain was a mixed sample. Courts in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions have admitted results of PCR technology and the DQ Alpha test as scientifically reliable. See State v. Dishon, 297 N.J.Super. 254, 277, 687 A.2d 1074 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 144, 693 A.2d 112 (1997) (finding that testimonial hearing was unnecessary to establish the general acceptance of DQ Alpha DNA testing); State v. Williams, 252 N.J.Super. 369, 381, 599 A.2d 960 (Law Div.1991) (<HOLDING>); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 897 P.2d 152
holding that overwhelming and persuasive evidence pointed to general acceptance of pcr process and dq alpha test holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules recognizing universal acceptance in the scientific community of the principles and techniques on which dna typing and pcr replication are based holding pcrdq alpha test and gmkm blood tests sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial holding that dq alpha and polymarker testing are sufficiently reliable under daubert and have achieved general acceptance within relevant scientific community