536 S.W.3d 123
Ark.2015Background
- In 1986 Carter was convicted of rape, aggravated robbery, and burglary; victim identified him and he was sentenced to life plus 40 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- A knife recovered near the victim’s home was admitted at trial as the weapon; Carter seeks postconviction DNA testing of touch DNA on the knife under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208.
- Carter filed his motion for DNA testing in 2012, alleging the knife remained in state custody (clerk’s office) and that modern STR/Y-STR testing could yield probative results.
- The State and the circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding failure to meet chain-of-custody and timeliness requirements and suggesting the motion was successive.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded, holding that disputed chain-of-custody and timeliness issues required an evidentiary hearing and that the motion was not barred as a successive petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chain of custody under §16-112-202(4) | Carter: knife is in State custody, had chain of custody, retained under conditions sufficient for testing | State: exhibit was handled by many people, envelope torn, chain likely broken; testing unreliable | Court: dispute over chain-of-custody unresolved on record; evidentiary hearing required |
| Timeliness under §16-112-202(10) | Carter: STR/Y-STR testing unavailable at trial; new, substantially more probative technology justifies delay | State: Carter knew about the knife earlier and could have checked its location sooner; presumption of untimeliness not rebutted | Court: rebuttable presumption may be overcome by showing new technology; Carter met that ground; timeliness not fatal; hearing required |
| Successive petition bar under §16-112-205(d) | Carter: prior petitions did not seek STR/Y-STR testing; this is a new request based on newer technology | State: prior postconviction litigation about evidence counsels denial as successive | Court: prior petitions did not involve the technologies now sought; successive-petition rationale did not preclude relief |
| Duty to hold an evidentiary hearing | Carter: statutory scheme requires a hearing unless files conclusively show no relief warranted | State: relied on record and clerk-office checkout entries to support denial without hearing | Court: files do not conclusively show no relief; hearing required to resolve factual disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. State, 295 Ark. 218, 748 S.W.2d 127 (1988) (direct-appeal opinion describing trial facts and affirming convictions)
- Whitfield v. State, 346 Ark. 43, 56 S.W.3d 357 (2001) (discussing admissibility/timeline of DNA evidence in Arkansas)
- Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991) (early Arkansas decision on DNA evidence)
- United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of chain-of-custody language in federal DNA-testing statute)
- Dist. Atty’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (discussing postconviction DNA testing framework)