THOMAS CLIFFORD WALLACE v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Getty, April 21, 2017,
Preservation of Evidence – CP 8-201 – The State is required to preserve “Scientific identification evidence” that might possibly contain DNA material that could possibly be exculpatory related to a conviction for certain violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, rape, sex offense 1/2).
Facts:
Wallace was arrested for a CDS violation while wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When Wallace was connected to a homicide, a search warrant was obtained for the property. The shorts were tested for DNA when blood was noticed on them, but the shirt was not tested.
Wallace was convicted of first-degree murder in 2000, after the DNA came back to the murder victim.
The t-shirt was destroyed in 2003, after the appellate process following the conviction had concluded.
In 2014, Wallace filed a Petition for DNA Testing under CP 8-201, claiming that there were hair fibers on the shirt that would exonerate him and that the State’s intentional destruction of the shirt was preventing him from presenting this exculpatory evidence.
The trial court held that no hearing was required because the shirt didn’t qualify as “Sceintific identification evidence” under the statute; no exculpatory or mitigating evidence was likely to be recovered from the shirt worn by the suspect at the time of arrest.
Wallace appealed, arguing that he only had to show that DNA may be recovered that may produce exculpatory evidence. The “reasonable probability” standard used by the court was too high.
Legal:
Held: The Court agreed, holding that the State must preserve evidence that “contains biological evidence from which DNA may be recovered that may produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of a convicted person of wrongful conviction or sentencing if subject to DNA testing.” Nevertheless, because Wallace wasn’t wearing the t-shirt when the murder occurred, there was no chance that it could have relevant DNA.
Preservation of “Scientific Identification Evidence” – The State is required to preserve “Scientific identification evidence” that contains DNA material and is connected to certain violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, rape, sex offense 1/2)
“Scientific Identification Evidence” means evidence that:
(i) is related to an investigation or prosecution that resulted in a judgment of conviction;
(ii) is in the actual or constructive possession of a law enforcement agency or agent of a law enforcement agency; and
(iii) contains biological evidence from which DNA may be recovered that may produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of a convicted person of wrongful conviction or sentencing if subject to DNA testing.
Accordingly, we hold that the “may produce” language of CP § 8-201(a)(5)(iii) is equivalent to a “mere possibility” or “chance.” In other words, “scientific identification evidence” is evidence that “contains biological evidence from which DNA [could possibly be] recovered that [could possibly produce] exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to a claim of a convicted person of wrongful conviction or sentencing if subject to DNA testing.”
If there is any chance that the requested evidence could produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence (and it satisfies the other statutory requirements), then it is scientific identification evidence, which the State has a duty to preserve
Right to Counsel – There is no right to appointed counsel for a CP 8-201 petition. A court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel.