Commonwealth v. Donald, 8 N.E.3d 727

In 1999 Stanley Donald was convicted of aggravated rape and related offenses; trial evidence included sperm on the victim’s underwear that matched Donald under older PCR-based testing (PM plus DQA1), yielding a 1-in-7,800 match for African Americans.
Only the underwear sperm sample had been DNA-tested at trial; other biological material in the rape kit (saliva, head and pubic hairs) was preserved but not tested.
Donald repeatedly sought postconviction DNA testing (motions, habeas) and in 2012 moved under G. L. c. 278A § 3 to test evidence with newer Profiler Plus and Cofiler STR kits.
The Superior Court denied Donald’s § 3 motion, citing that DNA testing already had been done and stating the trial evidence (excluding DNA) was overwhelming; Donald appealed and the SJC granted direct review.
The SJC held that § 3 permits access to more advanced testing even when older testing was performed, but affirmed denial of Donald’s motion on different grounds because his motion failed to provide information showing the requested tests were not available at the time of conviction as required by G. L. c. 278A § 3(b)(5).

Issue	Donald's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether § 3 allows postconviction access to a more advanced version of a test previously run	§ 3 permits testing with newer, more discriminating methods (Profiler Plus/Cofiler) that materially improve accuracy	Prior testing suffices; newer tests are “mere refinements” and therefore not a new analysis	§ 3 allows access when the requested analysis materially improves identification/exclusion over prior testing
What showing § 3(b)(5) requires when prior, older testing was performed	Alleged Profiler Plus/Cofiler were not developed at time of conviction (invoked § 3(b)(5)(i))	The motion must show why the newer analysis was not performed; mere assertion is insufficient	Moving party must provide information showing the requested analysis was unavailable at conviction; Donald’s bare assertion failed this requirement
Whether the judge could deny at threshold by weighing trial evidence strength	Donald: weight of evidence irrelevant at § 3 threshold stage	Commonwealth: trial evidence strength supports denial	Judge erred to rely on case strength; weight of evidence is not part of the § 3 threshold inquiry

Commonwealth v. Wade, 467 Mass. 496 (discusses § 3 threshold requirements and standard for testing motions)
Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 (upheld admissibility of Profiler Plus and Cofiler STR test results)
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 458 Mass. 446 (illustrates discriminating power of 13-locus STR testing)
Commonwealth v. Joyner, 467 Mass. 176 (notes limited statistical evidence in some forensic disciplines)
Commonwealth v. Vao Sok, 425 Mass. 787 (describes PCR and STR methods)
Commonwealth v. Va Meng Joe, 425 Mass. 99 (explains appellate affirmation on different grounds)
Commonwealth v. Donald, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (trial facts summarized and relied upon)