Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496

Isom was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery, residential burglary, attempted capital murder, and two counts of rape, with a death sentence and other prison terms; direct appeal affirmed.
Evidence included victim Dorothy Lawson’s testimony, the attack at Bill Burton’s trailer, and identification of Isom from a photographic lineup as well as a black hair found on the victim with DNA not excluding Isom.
Postconviction relief petitions challenged DNA testing; initial DNA results linked Isom but left a partial profile; Mini-STR testing increased the probability of another contributor but did not exclude Isom.
Isom sought additional testing comparing the crime-scene hair to DNA from Kevin Green and Jerry Avery, arguing tentative relatedness and database availability; the circuit court denied further testing.
Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 authorize additional testing when results are inconclusive; the court denied relief under 16-112-208(b).
This appeal addresses whether the denial was proper, and whether Isom had a constitutional right to third-party DNA testing under due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for denial of DNA testing	Isom argues de novo review for statutory interpretation.	State urges clear-error review under postconviction standards.	Abuse-of-discretion review governs denial under 16-112-208(b).
Whether testing results were inconclusive	Mini-STR did not exclude relatives; testing may be inconclusive.	Order did not show inconclusiveness; testing increased but did not exclude Isom.	Circuit court did not abuse discretion given inconclusive results and lack of exclusion of Isom.
Right to test third parties' DNA	Due process requires access to Green and Avery DNA in databases to test their involvement.	No constitutional right to postconviction testing; testing would not likely exonerate Isom.	No fundamental unfairness; denial upheld because results did not exclude Isom and third-party testing wouldn't conclusively change that.

Misskelley v. State, 2010 Ark. 415 (Ark. 2010) (established clear-error standard for postconviction, but abuse-of-discretion when statute allows testing)
Davis v. State, 366 Ark. 401 (Ark. 2006) (DNA testing denied under postconviction framework)
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417 (Ark. 2010) (distinguishes scientific inconclusiveness from legal inconclusiveness in DNA testing)
Johnson v. State, 356 Ark. 534 (Ark. 2004) (establishes standard for postconviction review)
Robinson v. State, 295 Ark. 693 (Ark. 1988) (due process considerations in collateral relief)