Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Brian Keith Moore
2011 Ky. LEXIS 191
| Ky. | 2011Background
- Collateral attack on a capital murder conviction after post-conviction DNA statutes (KRS 422.285) this Court previously affirmed death sentence but preserved issues for DNA testing.
- Appellant Moore sought additional DNA testing beyond that ordered by the circuit court; he argued loss of evidence and potential exculpatory DNA.
- Commonwealth cross-appealed, asserting lack of entitlement to outside testing and challenges to the circuit court’s determinations.
- Evidence against Moore included confessions, fingerprint, gunshot residue, and ballistics linking him to the crime; Blair and Thompson presented a competing theory.
- A prior order allowed some DNA testing; subsequent proceedings lost/punted certain clothing items; testing yielded partial DNA profiles with non-match DNA present.
- Court remanded in part for further proceedings, affirming some rulings but finding error in limiting outside testing under statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the lost evidence mandate automatic reversal? | Moore argues loss warrants reversal or an evidentiary hearing. | Commonwealth contends loss does not automatically reverse; testing may still be limited. | No automatic reversal; remedy lies in further testing and appropriate proceedings. |
| May a circuit court order outside DNA testing under KRS 422.285? | Outside testing is essential to thorough verification of innocence. | Statutes limit testing to KSP lab or its designee unless court deems testing appropriate. | Circuit court abused its discretion by rigidly applying the statute; remand to consider independent testing. |
| Does finding another DNA donor on evidence help Moore get a new trial? | Presence of another person’s DNA is favorable exculpatory evidence. | DNA findings were not exculpatory; did not exclude Moore. | Not automatically exculpatory; must show exclusion of Moore or other substantial exculpatory impact. |
| Is laches a bar to Moore’s KRS 422.285 petition? | Delay should not bar post-conviction DNA relief given statute allows filing after conviction. | La ches should bar or at least prejudicially delay justice. | La ches does not apply to KRS 422.285 petitions; delay not a bar absent prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 462 (Ky. 2010) (remand and consideration of testing under KRS 422.285; guidance on evidentiary impact of DNA results)
- State v. Calleia, 414 N.J. Super. 125, 997 A.2d 1051 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) (Y-STR testing usefulness in excluding a person; limits of DNA evidence for excluding innocence)
- Osborne, Osborne v. District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist., 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (due process limits on post-conviction DNA testing and framework for testing requests)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 291 S.W.3d 692 (Ky. 2009) (discusses testing scope under KRS 422.285 and compliance with statutes)