Com. v. Hitner, C.
Com. v. Hitner, C. No. 2719 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 19, 2017Background
- Clinton Hitner was convicted after a jury trial of multiple rapes, kidnappings, and related charges; sentenced to 40–80 years and classified as a sexually violent predator.
- His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal.
- In April 2016 Hitner filed a pro se Motion for Post-Conviction DNA Testing under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543.1 seeking testing of items (including samples from his car trunk) he says the Commonwealth omitted from prior testing.
- The PCRA court issued a Rule 907 notice, received Hitner’s pro se response, and dismissed the motion as failing to allege how testing would be exculpatory or establish actual innocence.
- The court found Hitner failed the statutory threshold in § 9543.1(a)(2) because the evidence was available pretrial, DNA technology existed at trial, the verdict post-dated January 1, 1995, and no court had refused funding; trial evidence and admissions already tied him to the victims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hitner is entitled to post-conviction DNA testing under § 9543.1 | Hitner: Commonwealth omitted/testing not done on trunk samples; testing would show innocence of kidnapping and lead to acquittal | Commonwealth/PCRA court: § 9543.1(a)(2) threshold not met because evidence was available pretrial, tech existed at trial, verdict after 1/1/1995, no denial of funds | Denied — Hitner failed § 9543.1(a)(2) eligibility and did not prima facie show testing would establish actual innocence |
| Whether requested testing would, if exculpatory, establish actual innocence under § 9543.1(c)(3)/(d)(2) | Hitner: testing could produce exculpatory evidence undermining kidnapping charges | PCRA court: trial DNA and admissions already connected Hitner to victims; no factual showing what new DNA would show to establish innocence | Denied — no reasonable possibility testing would produce exculpatory evidence sufficient to establish actual innocence |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hitner, 910 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2006) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Walsh, 125 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review and statutory requirements for § 9543.1 motions)
- Commonwealth v. Perry, 959 A.2d 932 (Pa. Super. 2008) (one-year PCRA time bar does not apply to § 9543.1 DNA testing motions)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 35 A.3d 44 (Pa. Super. 2011) (petitioner must prima facie show testing would establish actual innocence)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 909 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2006) (DNA testing will not justify relief where identity is not disputed and defense was consent)