Martin v. State
545 S.W.3d 763
Ark.2018Background
- Gary Martin was convicted of first-degree murder for killing Kimberly Burris; conviction and life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal (Martin v. State).
- Victim's body was found in a freezer in an abandoned Lonoke County house in 1998; Yolanda Day gave accomplice statements identifying Martin and describing the scene and murder details.
- Trial evidence corroborating Day included testimony about Martin and Burris’s relationship (Burris had AIDS), witnesses who saw Martin force Burris into a vehicle, medical-examiner findings (hog-tied, gagged, possible suffocation), and hair microscopy linking hair at the house to Day.
- In 2016 Martin sought postconviction DNA testing under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 et seq. of: (1) the hair microscopically identified as Day’s, and (2) other items (victim’s clothing, duct tape, ligatures, and hair from a car tied to an alternate suspect).
- The circuit court denied the motion; Martin appealed the denial of DNA testing and the denial without an evidentiary hearing.
- The majority affirms, holding testing would not establish actual innocence for the hair evidence and that the petition was untimely as to other items without adequate rebuttal of the presumption against timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Martin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA testing of hair attributed by microscopy to Yolanda Day would "establish actual innocence" | Hair testing would show Day was not at the crime scene and undermine her testimony, supporting innocence | Even if hair is not Day’s, that would not significantly advance actual-innocence claim given other corroborating evidence | Denied — testing hair would not significantly advance actual-innocence showing |
| Whether DNA testing of other items (clothes, duct tape, ligatures, car hair) should be allowed despite untimeliness | Testing will identify evidence pointing to an alternate suspect and thus show manifest injustice/good cause | Motion is untimely; evidence and alternate suspect were known at trial, and arguments amount to a bare assertion of innocence | Denied — presumption against timeliness not rebutted; request is untimely |
| Whether a new, substantially more probative testing technology justifies overcoming untimeliness | New methods (mtDNA, STR) will provide probative results not available at trial | Requested methods were available before trial and Martin did not show they were unavailable then | Denied — no new method shown; tests were available at time of trial |
| Whether the circuit court erred by denying a hearing on the DNA petition | An evidentiary hearing is required because the record does not conclusively show no relief is available | The files and records conclusively show Martin is entitled to no relief, so no hearing required | Majority: No error — record conclusively shows denial proper; Dissent: Reversal/remand for hearing (as to some items) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198, 57 S.W.3d 136 (2001) (direct-appeal opinion affirming conviction and discussing corroboration of accomplice testimony)
- Johnson v. State, 356 Ark. 534, 157 S.W.3d 151 (2004) (postconviction DNA-testing statutes do not permit testing based on mere innocence assertions)
- Howard v. State, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (recognition that mitochondrial-DNA testing had been performed prior to certain trials)
- Hamm v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 336 Ark. 391, 985 S.W.2d 742 (1999) (use of STR testing recognized prior to 1999)