Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State
Background
- In 1995 Nelson was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and lewd conduct with a minor; sentenced to concurrent life terms; direct appeal affirmed.
- Nelson filed multiple post-conviction petitions; the opinion concerns his seventh successive petition seeking STR DNA testing of the victim’s rape kit and release of the victim’s DNA profile to compare to DNA from Nelson’s underwear.
- Nelson also alleged the State withheld impeachment evidence related to an FBI analyst and served a subpoena duces tecum on the Idaho State Police Forensic Services for the victim’s DNA profile.
- The district court denied discovery requests, quashed the subpoena, denied leave to file a “bifurcated” amended petition, denied appointment of counsel, and summarily dismissed the successive petition after a hearing.
- The court concluded Nelson failed to make a prima facie showing that DNA testing or release of the victim’s profile had the scientific potential to make it more likely than not (i.e., >50%) that he is innocent, and that his FBI-analyst claim could have been previously raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in summarily dismissing Nelson’s DNA-testing request | Nelson: testing or release of victim’s DNA will show victim’s DNA is absent from his underwear and thus prove innocence | State: absence of victim DNA from underwear does not make it more probable than not that Nelson is innocent given his trial testimony denying penile contact | Affirmed — Nelson failed to present prima facie evidence that testing would make it more probable than not he is innocent; summary dismissal proper |
| Whether the court erred by quashing subpoena and denying motion to compel (victim’s DNA profile) | Nelson: subpoena compliance would create exculpatory nexus with unknown DNA on underwear | State: discovery would not produce exculpatory evidence; not necessary to protect substantial rights | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; discovery would be speculative and not likely to produce exculpatory evidence |
| Whether the court erred in denying leave to file a bifurcated/amended petition or in failing to rule on motions to amend or for discovery | Nelson: should be permitted to file amended (bifurcated) petition and to conduct identification/testing of an item in lab inventory | State: proposed amendment was essentially identical and futile; discovery not shown necessary to protect rights | Affirmed — leave denied as amendment was futile/identical; implicit denials of later motions stand; appellate claims waived where no argument provided |
| Whether the court erred in denying appointment of counsel and in summarily dismissing claim re: FBI analyst | Nelson: needed counsel to develop claims and obtain discovery; FBI-analyst OIG material was withheld and impeaching | State: petition is frivolous; Nelson failed to show why FBI-analyst claim could not have been raised earlier; no prima facie claim shown | Affirmed — petition frivolous; district court properly exercised discretion in denying counsel and summarily dismissing the FBI-analyst claim as untimely/previously available |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (2009) (standards for post-conviction proceedings and appellate review)
- Bourgeois v. Murphy, 119 Idaho 611 (1991) ("more probable than not" standard for post-conviction DNA testing)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (when summary dismissal is improper because affidavits/evidence may entitle petitioner to relief)
- Raudebaugh v. State, 135 Idaho 602 (2001) (discovery in post-conviction actions and court’s discretion)
- Grant v. State, 156 Idaho 598 (2014) (standards for appointment of counsel in post-conviction proceedings)