Hall v. State
2017 Ark. 77
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In 1997, a Phillips County jury convicted Androus Hall of aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and attempted rape; aggregate sentence 576 months. The Court of Appeals previously affirmed.
- Hall filed an Act 1780 habeas petition in the trial court in 2014 seeking postconviction testing of evidence using a scanning electron microscope to discover hair, skin, or trace DNA evidence.
- The trial record showed limited physical evidence: three items (plastic wrap, its box, and a plastic bag) sent to the crime lab; hair on the bag matched the victim; no forensic connection to Hall was found; victim identified Hall at trial.
- The trial court denied the petition as untimely and without merit; Hall appealed and moved for an extension of time to file his appellant brief in this court.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the appeal as clearly without merit and rendered Hall’s motion for an extension moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Act 1780 (36‑month rule) | Hall argued petition meritorious despite delay; sought testing years after conviction | State argued petition was filed more than 36 months after conviction and Hall failed to rebut presumption against timeliness | Petition untimely; Hall failed to rebut presumption; dismissal proper |
| Availability and probative value of new technology (electron microscope) | Hall asserted the crime lab lacked a scanning electron microscope at trial and that retesting now could show exculpatory trace evidence | State argued Hall offered no factual proof microscope was unavailable and no showing it is substantially more probative than prior testing | Court: Hall failed to show new technology would be substantially more probative; claim fails |
| Existence and preservation of testable evidence | Hall contended items/evidence could be retested to reveal new DNA/trace evidence | State pointed to record showing only victim’s hair and blood on items; no other trace evidence was located or preserved for testing | Court: Hall did not demonstrate items secured, tested, and maintained by lab that would yield new material evidence |
| Actual-innocence/newly-discovered evidence requirement under Act 1780 | Hall implicitly argued testing could produce new evidence establishing actual innocence | State argued petition relied on Hall’s assertion of innocence and did not present newly discovered evidence or other statutory bases | Court: Petition based solely on Hall’s assertion of innocence; no newly discovered evidence shown; no manifest injustice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 493 S.W.3d 754 (Ark. 2016) (timeliness and new-technology standards under Act 1780)
- Girley v. Hobbs, 445 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2014) (Act 1780 authorizes habeas relief based on new scientific evidence of actual innocence)
- Davis v. State, 235 S.W.3d 902 (Ark. 2006) (predicate requirements for testing under Act 1780)
- Douthitt v. State, 237 S.W.3d 78 (Ark. 2006) (timeliness and standards for rebutting presumption against delay)