Crone, J.
Martin Meehan was convicted of burglary and being a habitual offender. The only evidence tying Meehan to the crime was a glove found at the crime scene that contained his DNA. . . . .
. . . .
The parties both agree that there is no case determining whether the presence of the defendant’s DNA on an object left at the crime scene, standing alone, is sufficient to prove that the defendant committed the offense. . . . .
. . .
In sum, in all the cases discussed, there was eyewitness or circumstantial evidence that explained how the DNA or fingerprint evidence ended up at the crime scene. In these cases, the totality of the circumstances made it unlikely that there was an innocent explanation for the presence of the DNA or fingerprint evidence at the scene.
In many cases, DNA is compelling evidence of identity. In this case, however, there was no evidence that would support an inference that Meehan’s DNA was found on the glove because he handled it during the burglary, as opposed to some other time. Therefore, the guilty verdict was based on speculation and must be reversed.
KIRSCH, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.