Calvin Donnell Jennings v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 620
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Early morning convenience store robbery: masked assailant jumped the counter, threatened clerk with a serrated knife, took $38, and fled; store video showed clothing but not the robber's face.
- Police canine tracked items in nearby woods hours after the robbery: a brown bag, $5 bills, black stocking cap, scarf, hooded sweatshirt, blue jeans, black shoes; a serrated black-handled knife found farther off the path.
- Victim positively identified the recovered items as those worn by the assailant from photos shown at trial, but could not identify the assailant himself.
- Forensic DNA analysis: the stocking cap and scarf contained mixed DNA with Jennings as the major contributor; the knife showed a mixed profile in which Jennings could not be excluded; the sweatshirt contained a complex mixture too indeterminate to analyze; no DNA testing reported for jeans or shoes.
- Jennings was identified by a cold-hit match in the state databank and later confirmed by buccal swab; no other evidence tied Jennings to the robbery.
- Trial and disposition: defense moved to strike; motion denied; jury convicted Jennings of robbery and sentenced him to 15 years; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the DNA evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA mixture evidence on clothing/knife was sufficient to prove Jennings was the robber | Commonwealth: Jennings was the major DNA contributor on the cap and scarf and could not be excluded from the knife; jury could infer he wore/possessed the items during the robbery | Jennings: DNA only proves contact with items at some time; mixed profiles and lack of timing/transfer evidence leave reasonable innocence hypotheses | Reversed: DNA mixtures without timing/transfer opinion do not exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; evidence legally insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Commonwealth, 287 Va. 68 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Crawford v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 84 (appellate review must consider all evidence and not reweigh credibility)
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572 (appellate court’s duty to consider all trial evidence)
- Bolden v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 144 (scope of evidence review on appeal)
- McNeal v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 16 (factfinder determines credibility and inferences)
- Thorne v. Commonwealth, 66 Va. App. 248 (conviction must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- Dowden v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 459 (same; burdens for excluding innocence hypotheses)
- Stevens v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 528 (reasonableness of alternative hypotheses is a factual question)
- Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 1 (appellate standard for assessing reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
- McMillan v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 11 (sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 437 (same standard restated)
- Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 516 (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the jury)
- Wilson v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 19 (reversal only if judgment is plainly wrong)