RICHARD A. EDWARDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, May 24, 2017,
Post-Conviction DNA Testing- CP 8-201– A convicted defendant was entitled to DNA testing of an object allegedly held by the suspect just before a sexual assault, but was not entitled to DNA testing of other items collected nearby.
In contrast to the language used in Wallace that a “mere possibility” is all that’s required for the state to preserve evidence, the Court here deals with testing and the “reasonable probability” standard
Facts:
In 2010, the victim was at a bar drinking. Realizing that she had too much to drink, she called a friend for a ride and waited in her car for the friend to pick her up. While in the car, a man approached her and asked her to borrow her lighter. He lit a cigarette with the lighter and then got into her car. The man did not leave when requested and ended up sexually assaulting the victim.
The lighter was not tested for DNA, but it was collected from the scene along with a Forever 21 bag and a cigarette pack. There was no evidence suggesting that the suspect touched either the bag or the cigarette pack.
Edwards was eventually identified as the suspect and convicted in 2011 after a jury trial.
In 2016, Edwards filed a motion to have evidence (including the lighter) tested for DNA. In denying the motion, the judge held there was “no possibility that a DNA test performed on the items requested would exonerate” him.
Edwards appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court. It does not matter that the lighter was not used to commit the crime or that the absence of DNA wouldn’t prove him innocent. It only matters that it “would tend to prove” that he either did or did not use the lighter. Edwards was not entitled to testing of the Forever 21 bag or the cigarette pack because the absence of DNA on them would not tend to show he didn’t do it.
CP 8-201(d)(1) – Upon a proper filing, a court is required to order DNA testing of evidence if the court finds that: (i) a reasonable probability exists that the DNA testing would produce exculpatory/mitigating evidence related to a claim of wrongful conviction/sentencing; and (ii) the requested DNA test is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
CP 8-201 is intended to “facilitate the establishment of claims of actual innocence for serious crimes.”
CP 8-201 – “exculpatory” means evidence that would tend to clear the accused of guilt, or tend to establish his or her innocence. It does not require a petitioner to establish that the result would have been different if the DNA results sought were known at the time of the trial.
CP 8-201 – In assessing whether there is a reasonable probability that DNA testing may produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence, where the State has possession of an item that a perpetrator allegedly touched, a court may take into account factors such as the nature of the item (e.g., whether it is an instrumentality of the crime), the physical proximity between where the item was located and where the crime occurred, and the temporal proximity between when the perpetrator touched the item and when the crime occurred.