STATE ex rel. SMITH v. NEUWIRTH
2014 OK CR 16
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- David Payne entered a blind nolo contendere plea to second-degree murder in 1993 and was sentenced to life; he did not timely withdraw his plea or appeal.
- Payne filed a post-conviction application in 2013 seeking DNA testing and additional discovery under Oklahoma’s Post-Conviction DNA Act (22 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1373 et seq.), which became effective Nov. 1, 2013.
- After a May 22, 2014 hearing, the district court (Judge Neuwirth) issued a May 27, 2014 order granting DNA testing and directing the District Attorney to cooperate in turning over evidence and documents; the court denied a request for written findings.
- The State sought review, arguing Payne failed to show a reasonable probability he would not have been convicted if favorable DNA results existed, that he unreasonably delayed (20 years; several witnesses deceased), and that discovery was improper absent an allegation of pretrial violations.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals treated the State’s application as an appeal under § 1373.7 and found the district court abused its discretion because statutory requirements were not met (no sworn affidavit, insufficient written findings/orders on testing lab, costs, conditions, and premature broader discovery).
- The Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Post-Conviction DNA Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Payne/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly granted DNA testing under § 1373.4(A)(1) (reasonable probability that favorable DNA would have prevented conviction) | Payne failed to show reasonable probability that favorable DNA results would have prevented conviction; other strong evidence (confession, possession of victim's key ring, motive, knowledge of crime scene) would remain | Judge found that if favorable results exist they would logically undermine conviction and concluded statutory criteria were met | Vacated: trial court abused discretion—statute requires a showing (and supporting sworn affidavit) before such a finding can be made |
| Whether the post-conviction motion complied with § 1373.2(C) (sworn affidavit requirement) | No sworn affidavit accompanied Payne’s motion; State asserts motion is procedurally deficient | District court considered testing request despite absence of sworn affidavit; judge relied on hearing statements | Vacated: statutorily required sworn affidavit was absent; court cannot lawfully order testing without it |
| Whether the district court complied with §§ 1373.4(D),(F) regarding laboratory selection, cost allocation, and conditions to protect evidence integrity | State contended order was too vague and failed to designate lab, allocate costs, or impose conditions to protect evidence and chain of custody | Judge ordered State to “cooperate” and allowed testing (defense indicated out-of-state lab) but did not specify lab, costs, or protective conditions in writing | Vacated: written findings must specify appropriate lab, who pays, and impose reasonable conditions to preserve evidence and testing integrity |
| Whether the district court properly ordered post-conviction discovery beyond materials to be tested (i.e., broader discovery under § 1373.5(A)(6)) | State argued additional discovery was premature absent favorable test results and no allegation of pretrial discovery violation was made | District court ordered turnover/cooperation for broader materials and documents pre-testing | Vacated: additional discovery tied to favorable results is only proper after tests are favorable; turnover beyond materials to be tested is premature |
Key Cases Cited
- None (this opinion did not cite any cases with official reporter citations; decision rests on interpretation and application of the Post-Conviction DNA Act statutory provisions)