Jackson v. State
139 A.3d 976
| Md. | 2016Background
- In 1993 Jackson entered an Alford plea to second-degree rape; sentenced and later released on probation.
- Biological evidence from the SAFE exam (underwear and microscope slides) was preserved; prior DNA testing (2005) produced inconclusive results; subsequent petitions in 2008 and 2013 were denied.
- In 2015 Jackson filed another petition under Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 8-201 seeking Touch DNA and other modern testing on underwear and remaining slide material to show his DNA was absent and thus potentially exculpatory.
- The State moved to dismiss and the Circuit Court (Baltimore County) denied the 2015 petition without a hearing under Md. Rule 4-709, citing no reasonable probability testing would produce exculpatory evidence.
- Jackson appealed; the Court of Appeals considered (a) whether res judicata bars successive DNA testing petitions and (b) whether the 2015 petition met the § 8-201 threshold and required a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals held res judicata does not bar successive DNA petitions under § 8-201 but affirmed denial of Jackson’s 2015 petition, concluding he failed to show a reasonable probability the requested testing would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars successive § 8-201 DNA petitions | Successive petitions allowed; statute and Rule 4-704 anticipate successive filings | Res judicata / procedural rules bar repetitive petitions for judicial economy | Res judicata does not bar successive DNA petitions under § 8-201; statutory history and policy favor access to testing |
| Whether Jackson’s 2015 petition met § 8-201(c) and required a hearing | Touch DNA on underwear and slides may show absence of Jackson’s DNA and thus be exculpatory; newer methods unavailable earlier warrant testing | Prior facts and the nature of the offense (force/rape), prior testing results, and factual record make it unlikely testing would exculpate; no genuine dispute requiring a hearing | Petition did not plausibly show a reasonable probability testing would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence; denial without a hearing was proper and was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Breslin, 430 Md. 52 (discusses res judicata elements and purpose)
- State v. Ayers, 923 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (successive DNA petitions not barred by res judicata given DNA’s exculpatory potential)
- Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698 (explains 2003 amendment relaxed § 8-201 testing standard)
- Dist. Attorney's Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (Supreme Court recognition of DNA’s powerful exculpatory capability)