Goldsmith v. State
255 P.3d 14
| Kan. | 2011Background
- Goldsmith was convicted in 1998 of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated burglary, rape, and aggravated sodomy and sentenced to 1,116 months' imprisonment.
- Goldsmith sought postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512 in 2004; 35 items were ordered for testing.
- KBI reported in 2007 that one item (blue sweatpants) yielded DNA matching both Goldsmith and the victim, while the State declined further testing.
- The district court dismissed the petition in 2007 under 21-2512(f)(1) after the unfavorable result on the single item.
- The Court of Appeals reversed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review to address interpretation of 21-2512 and proper testing procedures when multiple items are involved.
- The court ultimately remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one unfavorable result allows automatic dismissal | Goldsmith: holistic testing should be considered. | State: order limited to one item; dismissal appropriate. | No; must consider the mix of tested items. |
| Whether the State could unilaterally stop testing | Goldsmith: State cannot halt testing without motion and hearing. | State: district court authority to dismiss under statute. | No; district court should have held a hearing on a motion to amend. |
| Whether the district court should hear and allow testing of remaining items | Goldsmith: remaining 34 items must be tested. | State: testing beyond the first unfavorable result unnecessary. | Yes; the district court must address the overall testing plan. |
| How to apply 21-2512(f) given mixed results | Goldsmith: holistic approach required; amendments possible. | State: statutory framework supports dismissal when unfavorable. | Holistic, mixed-result approach required; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory-interpretation standard; legislative intent governs when plain)
- Haddock v. State, 282 Kan. 475 (2006) (testing results framed as favorable/unfavorable/inconclusive; comprehensive hearings)
- Denney, 283 Kan. 781 (2007) (testing methodology; preserve evidence; testing as allowed by statute)
- Koch Engineering Co. v. Faulconer, 227 Kan. 813 (1980) (proper method to challenge legal orders: motion to set aside, not defiance)
- Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603 (2004) (new-testing methods; state must preserve evidence)
- State v. Wade, 284 Kan. 527 (2007) (unlimited review of due-process issues in postconviction testing)