34 N.E.3d 1
Mass.2015Background
- In 1974 Tyrone Clark was convicted (rape, unarmed robbery, kidnapping) based largely on victim and eyewitness identifications; the blade of the knife used in the assault broke off during the struggle.
- The police recovered the knife handle and a pair of men’s socks from the victim’s apartment; the blade fragment remained attached to the handle; the bloody towel was apparently not recovered.
- Clark filed a postconviction motion under G. L. c. 278A § 3 in 2013 seeking Y-STR DNA testing of the knife handle and discovery about the socks and other materials, and he filed an affidavit asserting factual innocence.
- The Superior Court judge denied the § 3 motion after a hearing, reasoning Clark had to show by a preponderance that biological material existed on the handle and that the socks were unlikely to be material.
- The Supreme Judicial Court concluded Clark satisfied the § 3 threshold requirements, reversed the denial of testing (except discovery), and remanded for findings on several § 7(b) factors; discovery regarding the socks was properly denied for lack of a § 3(c) showing of efforts to obtain them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Clark meet the § 3 statutory threshold to proceed to a § 7 hearing for DNA testing? | Clark argued his motion met § 3(b) and (d): identified Y‑STR testing, location of the knife handle, admissibility, and an affidavit of factual innocence plus an expert affidavit saying testing "may" recover perpetrator material. | Commonwealth argued Clark failed to show the testing would be material and disputed chain of custody/location for some items. | Held: Clark met § 3; the motion contained the modest, documentary evidence § 3 requires and was not dismissed. |
| Under § 7(b), must a movant prove the existence of biological material on the item before testing is ordered? | Clark argued § 7(b)(1) requires only that the "evidence or biological material exists" and that proving the physical evidence (knife handle) exists suffices; showing biological material would be the purpose of the testing. | Commonwealth and the judge argued movant must show a reasonable possibility that biological material exists on the item before ordering testing. | Held: The SJC held "or" is disjunctive; showing the existence of the physical evidence (knife handle) satisfies § 7(b)(1); movant need not pre‑establish biological material. |
| Did Clark satisfy § 7(b)(4) (testing has potential to yield evidence material to identification) at the § 7 stage? | Clark relied on victim testimony that she grabbed and stabbed the assailant, expert affidavit that testing might recover DNA, and the absence of wounds on Clark, to show potential materiality. | Commonwealth emphasized compelling eyewitness ID at trial and the speculative nature of finding usable DNA. | Held: SJC ruled the motion had the requisite potential under § 7(b)(4); the statute’s "potential" standard is permissive and intended to be generous to moving parties. |
| Was discovery regarding the socks required under § 3(c) or otherwise appropriate? | Clark sought discovery to locate and test the socks, asserting Detective Farrell recovered them; argued discovery at § 3 is proper when movant lacks information. | Commonwealth said it did not possess the socks; judge found Clark did not describe efforts to obtain the socks and there was no link to the assailant. | Held: Denial affirmed. Clark failed to satisfy § 3(c)’s requirement to describe efforts to obtain missing items, so discovery was properly denied (subject to renewal if new info emerges). |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wade, 467 Mass. 496 (articulating § 3 threshold standard and two‑step § 278A process)
- Commonwealth v. Donald, 468 Mass. 37 (§ 3 requires pointing to specific information satisfying statutory requirements)
- District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (discussing DNA’s power to exonerate and identify)
- Commonwealth v. Bizanowicz, 459 Mass. 400 (admissibility of Y‑STR DNA evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Girouard, 436 Mass. 657 (occult blood and nonvisible biological material)
- Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1 (discussion of Y‑chromosome STR testing)