Sawyer v. State
2015 Ark. 369
Ark.2015Background
- In 1983 Clint Sawyer was convicted by a jury in Lonoke County of three counts of rape and three counts of burglary; sentenced to three consecutive life terms for rape and concurrent 60 years for burglary. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Sawyer previously filed postconviction and habeas challenges (including a 1997 habeas petition) that were denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In July 2014 Sawyer filed a pro se habeas petition under Act 1780 (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208) seeking DNA testing of items (vaginal-smear slide, vaginal swab, vaginal washing, nightgown) and handwriting analysis of written confessions.
- Trial-record facts: semen was found on a vaginal-smear slide (stipulated); a victim’s pillowcase blood matched Sawyer’s blood type; a victim’s pistol was later found in Sawyer’s home; Sawyer had cuts consistent with a victim’s statement; and Sawyer confessed to all three rapes.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding Sawyer failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness and failed to show that proposed testing would produce new material evidence raising a reasonable probability of innocence. Sawyer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed DNA testing would produce new material evidence supporting Sawyer's defense and raise reasonable probability he didn’t commit the crimes | Sawyer argued identity was in question and that DNA testing could exonerate him | State argued existing trial evidence (stipulations, physical evidence, confessions) and lack of any showing that new testing would yield new, noncumulative results | Court held Sawyer failed to show testing would produce new material evidence or reasonable probability of innocence; denial affirmed |
| Whether handwriting analysis of written confessions could produce new material evidence | Sawyer sought handwriting analysis, claiming confessions not signed by him or signed under duress | State argued samples were available at trial and Sawyer failed to show analysis would produce new evidence | Court held handwriting analysis would not produce new material evidence; claim fails |
| Whether petition was timely under §16-112-202(10) and whether Sawyer rebutted presumption against timeliness | Sawyer filed ~32 years after conviction and offered no statutory basis to rebut the presumption | State asserted the petition was untimely and Sawyer did not satisfy any rebuttal criteria (incompetence, newly discovered evidence, new technology, manifest injustice, or other good cause) | Court held petition untimely; Sawyer failed to rebut presumption against timeliness; denial affirmed |
| Whether Sawyer satisfied procedural prerequisites of Act 1780 for court-ordered testing | Sawyer asserted entitlement to testing under Act 1780 | State maintained statutory predicate requirements (timeliness, showing new material evidence) were unmet | Court held statutory prerequisites not satisfied; testing properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawyer v. State, 284 Ark. 26, 678 S.W.2d 367 (Ark. 1984) (direct-appeal affirmation of convictions and consideration of confession corroboration)
- Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 570, 237 S.W.3d 76 (Ark. 2006) (statutory predicate requirements before ordering testing under Act 1780)
- Davis v. State, 366 Ark. 401, 235 S.W.3d 902 (Ark. 2006) (duplicate testing of existing records does not satisfy Act 1780’s new-evidence requirement)
- Darrough v. State, 2014 Ark. 334, 439 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. 2014) (petition must provide factual support that scientific evidence bears on the case)
- Scott v. State, 372 Ark. 587, 279 S.W.3d 66 (Ark. 2008) (availability of samples at trial defeats claim that new testing would produce newly discovered evidence)
- Clemons v. State, 2014 Ark. 454, 446 S.W.3d 619 (Ark. 2014) (affirming denial where petitioner failed to show testing would produce material evidence)