2013 Vt. 90
Vt.2013Background
- Edwin Towne was convicted of murder in 1989; conviction upheld on direct appeal.
- Since conviction, Towne filed multiple post-conviction petitions; in 2011 he sought mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing of hairs found on the victim.
- Towne argued that mtDNA showing the hairs belonged to his ex-girlfriend’s son (whom he alleges is the real killer) would create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
- The State opposed testing; trial court granted summary judgment for the State, concluding mtDNA results would not undermine confidence in the verdict.
- Trial evidence included bullets matching a gun purchased by Towne and the gun’s concealment in his construction site; no forensic evidence at trial linked Towne via the hairs.
- The mtDNA sought could identify matrilineal lineage only (not uniquely the son) and hair transfer testimony at trial reduced the exculpatory value of a match to the girlfriend or her son.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for post-conviction DNA testing under 13 V.S.A. §5566(a)(1) | Towne contends the court misapplied the standard and that mtDNA would create reasonable probability of different outcome | State contends petitioner must show results would create reasonable probability of different outcome; court should deny if no such probability | Court adopts Strickland reasonable-probability standard: "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." |
| Burden of proof formulation (preponderance vs. reasonable probability) | Towne argued his showing met statutory requirements; implied preponderance phrasing used below | State urged application of reasonable-probability standard (not preponderance of evidence that there is reasonable probability) | Court rejects conflation with preponderance; clarifies petitioner need not prove by preponderance that result would differ—only reasonable probability. |
| Materiality of requested mtDNA testing of hairs | Towne: mtDNA excluding him and matching ex-girlfriend’s son would point to alternate perpetrator and thus likely change verdict | State: mtDNA matches to matrilineal relatives are limited, subject to transfer, and would not overturn other strong circumstantial/forensic evidence | Court holds mtDNA match to girlfriend or son would not sufficiently undermine confidence given hair-transfer possibilities, jury had other strong evidence (bullets, gun, concealment), and jurors could consider Towne’s prior refusal to provide a sample. |
| Remedy if mtDNA matched the son/relative | Towne seeks testing and, if match excludes him, samples from the son for comparison and potential exoneration | State argues even if matched, it would be equivocal and not dispositive; compelled sampling of third party not guaranteed | Court denies relief: even best-case mtDNA results would not create reasonable probability of different outcome and thus testing not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the "reasonable probability" prejudice standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (defining "reasonable probability" materiality in Brady context)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (Brady materiality subsidiary discussion)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution disclosure obligations)
- State v. Towne, 158 Vt. 607 (affirming Towne’s conviction on direct appeal)
- In re Dunbar, 162 Vt. 209 (discussing the reasonable-probability standard in Vermont)
- State v. Goyette, 156 Vt. 591 ("creates a reasonable doubt that did not otherwise exist" formulation)