Evidence used to convict a man of kidnapping and raping a 6-year-old girl is good enough to keep him in prison a long time, a Utah Supreme Court justice hinted.

Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman on Monday questioned arguments by attorney Kent Snider that the DNA test used to help convict Stanley Allen Smith, 31, wasn't properly conducted and that some hearsay testimony shouldn't have been used in Smith's trial.Zimmerman also shrugged off Snider's suggestion during the appeal hearing that Smith's own abusive upbringing should have been given more mitigating weight during Smith's sentencing.

Smith was sentenced last spring to 15 years to life on a count each of aggravated kidnapping and rape of a child and two counts each of sodomy of a child.

"He may have been abused, but he turned out to be a career abuser," Zimmerman said.

The girl was taken from the Corinne Elementary School playground on a weekend in May 1993, to an area about 10 miles west of town and raped and sodomized. She later was driven back to Corinne and was found by a neighbor. The girl's injuries required several hours of surgery.

A jury took about 90 minutes before convicting Smith, who was sentenced later by 2nd District Judge Michael Glasmann of Ogden.

Snider argued that Jay Henry, the man who tested the DNA, was underqualified and botched the procedure.

Snider told the justices that Henry only has a bachelor's degree in forensic science with a minor in chemistry. Henry also had about 30 days of schooling in DNA testing with the FBI, which the lawyer said was not enough to adequately conduct testing.

Snider asked the justices to set standards for DNA testing in Utah by using the case as a guideline for how not to do DNA sampling.

But Zimmerman said the justices only had to evaluate the evidence put before them, not set up a legal "checklist" for prosecutors.

Snider also targeted interviews of the girl by a social worker and an investigator.

Zimmerman noted hair, semen and fiber samples all were linked to Smith, and added, "We've confirmed convictions on . . . hairs alone."

The justices gave no indication when they would rule on the appeal.