ANSELMO (MICHAEL) v. STATE
2022 NV 11
| Nev. | 2022Background
- In 1971 a woman was found murdered; Michael Anselmo was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder in 1972 after a general verdict (the State advanced both a felony‑murder‑by‑rape theory and a premeditated‑murder theory).
- Autopsy showed semen in the victim with no sperm present; the pathologist testified sperm could have degenerated or the donor could be sterile.
- Anselmo confessed but consistently also pointed to John Soares as the killer; he argued the confession was involuntary and inconsistent with physical evidence.
- In 2018 Anselmo petitioned under Nevada’s postconviction genetic‑marker‑analysis statute to test clothing, fingernail clippings, hair, and the rape kit with modern DNA methods.
- The district court denied the petition, reasoning the jury had heard similar exculpatory evidence and alternative circumstantial evidence supported the conviction; it also found the State’s evidence inventories sufficient though some entries listed only containers.
- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded: the court held the district court must assume testing would be exculpatory when assessing the statutory “reasonable possibility” standard, and inventories that describe only packaging (not contents) are insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Anselmo's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for granting postconviction genetic testing | NRS requires the court to assume testing would be exculpatory and grant testing if there is a reasonable possibility the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted | Jury already heard similar evidence; exculpatory DNA would not create a reasonable possibility of a different outcome given other proof | Court: statute requires assuming exculpatory results; if that assumption creates a real possibility the outcome would differ, testing must be ordered (reversed district court) |
| Effect of DNA exclusion on felony‑murder theory | Exclusion of Anselmo as semen donor (or DNA under fingernails) would directly undermine the felony‑murder (rape) theory and create a reasonable possibility of a different verdict | Other circumstantial and confession evidence could still support conviction; pathologist testimony already allowed non‑Anselmo explanations | Court: exclusion would directly contradict the State’s felony‑murder theory and therefore satisfies the reasonable‑possibility standard |
| Sufficiency of State evidence inventory | Inventories that list only containers (e.g., “film canister”) fail to show whether relevant evidence exists and thus are insufficient | Statute does not require custodians to open sealed items before the court orders testing; opening should await a testing order | Court: inventories must describe the evidence itself, not merely the packaging; custodians must supply detailed inventories so the court can determine what evidence exists and what to test |
| Judicial estoppel based on Pardons Board statement | Anselmo contends prior Pardons Board statements do not preclude testing | State contended judicial estoppel applied because Anselmo previously confessed at a Pardons Board hearing | Court: State’s judicial‑estoppel argument was not cogently supported; the Court did not rely on it and found the argument unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 132 Nev. 655, 376 P.3d 802 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Roberts v. State, 110 Nev. 1121, 881 P.2d 1 (defines “reasonable possibility” as a real possibility evidence would have affected outcome)
- Lambert v. State, 435 P.3d 1011 (defendant need not show likelihood results will be favorable; court assumes favorable results for analysis)
- James v. State, 492 P.3d 1 (testing is unwarranted when results would be irrelevant to the State’s theory or defendant’s defense)
- Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 128 Nev. 224, 276 P.3d 246 (discovery‑order review and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Nye, 136 Nev. 421, 468 P.3d 369 (inventory must detail contents to be sufficient)
- Burns v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 533, 554 P.2d 257 (opening and testing sealed evidence does not break chain of custody when proper procedures are followed)