814 S.E.2d 447
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- Earnest Ray White, convicted in 1996 of aggravated assault, burglary, and kidnapping, has consistently maintained his innocence and sought postconviction DNA testing in 2015 under OCGA § 5-5-41(c).
- The item to be tested was the victim’s spandex pants, alleged to have been grabbed and ripped during the assault; the pants have been in evidentiary storage and were used as an exhibit at trial.
- White filed a verified motion showing location and custody of the pants; the trial court held hearings where experts testified about "touch" or contact DNA, possible degradation over time, and uncertain testability without actual analysis.
- The trial court denied testing, concluding the biological material likely had been materially altered by long-term storage (heat, humidity, light) and thus failed to satisfy OCGA § 5-5-41(c)(7)(A) and (B).
- White appealed; the Court of Appeals found the trial court applied the wrong legal inquiry—it assessed probable DNA viability rather than whether the item was available for testing and had an adequate chain of custody—and vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard under OCGA § 5-5-41(c)(7)(A),(B) for authorizing DNA testing | White: Court must determine only that the evidence (the pants) is available for testing and has an adequate chain of custody | State: Court may deny testing if experts opine DNA likely degraded or unusable | Held: Trial court erred in requiring petitioner to prove DNA viability; statute requires only that the item be available and chain of custody be shown before testing is permitted |
| Role of trial court factfinding and appellate review standard | White: Trial court is finder of fact on subsection criteria; should not conduct premature viability assessment | State: Emphasized expert testimony that degradation made testing likely futile | Held: Trial court is trier of fact (factual findings reviewed for clear error) but this Court independently applies the statute to those facts; factual findings must align with statutory criteria |
| Whether petitioner must show DNA on item has not deteriorated before testing | White: No such initial burden; testing is needed to determine presence/viability | State: Petitioners should demonstrate DNA has not been altered or degraded to justify testing | Held: Georgia law does not place that burden on petitioner at the threshold; assessing DNA viability before testing contradicts OCGA § 5-5-41(c) |
| Remedy where wrong standard applied | White: Remand for further proceedings and, if necessary, new hearing | State: Denial affirmed due to expert doubts about usefulness | Held: Vacated denial and remanded; trial court may hold a new hearing limited to statutory factors and whether there is reasonable probability results would have changed verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. State, 278 Ga. 95 (trial court weighing of presumed DNA evidence against other evidence of guilt)
- Drane v. State, 291 Ga. 298 (extraordinary motions for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Williams v. State, 289 Ga. App. 856 (identity must be an issue to permit testing)
- State v. Clark, 273 Ga. App. 411 (motion for DNA testing may precede or accompany extraordinary motion for new trial)
- Handley v. State, 289 Ga. 786 (trial court credibility findings entitled to deference)
- Timberlake v. State, 246 Ga. 488 (requirements for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
- Welbon v. State, 301 Ga. 106 (remand appropriate where trial court used wrong standard)
- Green v. State, 302 Ga. 816 (trial court factual findings in postconviction ineffective-assistance inquiry affirmed unless clearly erroneous)