Robert E. Quinn v. State of Indiana
45 N.E.3d 39
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- In March 1988, ten-year-old E.F. was abducted from her home, sexually assaulted, and suffered severe vaginal lacerations; evidence (nightgown, underwear, washcloth, sexual-assault kit) was collected and submitted to the state lab.
- 1988 lab testing used ABO blood typing and produced limited results; the lab retained small "sub-items" of evidence at the analyst's discretion, while the sheriff's office later destroyed its evidence files.
- DNA testing technology and CODIS became available in the 1990s–2000s; Indiana began CODIS submissions in 2000, but the lab had no formal policy to reexamine old sub-items absent a request.
- In 2011–2012 E.F. contacted authorities; retired Detective Kenawell located sub-items retained by an analyst. Lab testing generated a male DNA profile that matched Quinn in CODIS; subsequent swabs confirmed Quinn as the source.
- In March 2013 the State charged Quinn with child molesting (Class B), criminal confinement (Class B), and rape (Class A). Quinn pleaded guilty to rape, then moved to dismiss the other charges as time-barred. The trial court denied the motion and convicted Quinn; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DNA-based statutory extension to the limitations period violates ex post facto prohibitions | State: extension is procedural and does not increase punishment; permissible | Quinn: applying the later-enacted DNA extension to his 1988 acts is ex post facto | Not preserved at trial; waived on appeal. On merits, court found no ex post facto violation in similar authorities. |
| Whether the State failed to exercise due diligence under Ind. Code § 35-41-4-2(b) in discovering DNA evidence | State: retention was discretionary, lab/resources limited, and investigators acted reasonably once evidence was located | Quinn: State had the sub-items since 1988 and had his DNA in CODIS earlier; delay was unreasonable | Court held the State acted reasonably under the circumstances; due diligence requirement satisfied and the DNA-extension toll applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunders v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (constitutional claim not preserved at trial is waived on appeal)
- Minton v. State, 802 N.E.2d 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (statute extending limitations for child molesting did not violate ex post facto clause)
- Wright v. State, 772 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (exceptions to statutes of limitations construed narrowly; clear statutes given plain meaning)
- Marshall v. State, 832 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishable: DNA-extension inapplicable where identity was discovered through non-DNA evidence)
- United States v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 2012) (federal statute addressing DNA and tolling of limitations, but not imposing a due-diligence requirement on prosecutors)