in the context of die entire case against Haddock. The State does not suggest the DNA results were “inconclusive.” In fact, the only suggestion by either party in their briefs that any test results were “inconclusive” is limited to testing in which a sample was insufficient or so degraded that a testing result could not be obtained. For example, in addressing the testing of a stain on Haddock’s shirt, tire State indicates: “Only trace levels of DNA were found. Dr. Wraxall’s findings were therefore inconclusive.” In this sense, the State is referring to whether the test resulted in a scientifically reportable DNA result, as opposed to whether the result was either inculpatory or exculpatory. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mattel, 455 Mass. 840, 849 n.22, 853-54, 920 N.E.2d 845 (2010) (<HOLDING>). We note a potential ambiguity as to which
holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless 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 retroactively applying new version of dna act authorizing collection of defendants dna as a condition of supervised release did not constitute a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum 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 there is no postconviction due process right to biological evidence for purposes of dna testing