State of Maine v. Olland Reese, 60 A.3d 1277

Reese was convicted in 2003 of murder of a sixteen-year-old girl; body found behind his mother’s Bowdoin home; evidence included a latent print on duct tape and blood/DNA evidence; postjudgment motion (2008–2011) sought DNA analysis and a new trial under 15 M.R.S. § 2138; new tests revealed a trace male DNA not from Reese, but lab contamination could explain it; court denied motion based on § 2138(10) criteria and concluded no probable different verdict; appealed the denial.
The State’s trial evidence showed the victim’s body buried near Reese’s residence, with DNA on the hatchet and blood in the house; Reese gave multiple statements and showed agitated behavior consistent with involvement; latent print on duct tape did not match Reese or the primary alternative suspect.
Postjudgment testing (Y-STR) identified male DNA not matching Reese on the clipped tape; additional testing found no other male DNA on the remaining tape; court acknowledged possible contamination from lab processes and alternative contamination sources.
The trial court applied § 2138(10) by considering (A) contamination possibilities, (B) alternatives, and (C) all prerequisites for a new trial; it concluded only the possibility of contamination existed and that a new trial was not probable, thus denying relief.
Reese timely appealed; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the denial, affirming the trial court’s interpretation and application of § 2138(10).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DNA could have originated from a source other than Reese	Reese argues DNA could have come from non-perp sources	State contends contamination or other sources possible	DNA could originate from other sources; not clearly erroneous to consider contamination
Whether the court erred in considering all evidence when evaluating contamination	Reese claims court relied on guilt evidence to infer contamination	Court properly considered all evidence, old and new	Court properly weighed all evidence per § 2138(10)
Whether the court correctly applied § 2138(10)(A)-(C) to deny a new trial	Advances in DNA could yield different verdict	No clear probability of a different verdict	Court did not abuse discretion; § 2138(10)(C) not satisfied
Whether the probability of a different verdict was established under § 2138(10)(C)(1)	New DNA evidence would likely exculpate Reese	Strong trial evidence would still support guilt	Not probable that different verdict would result; no reversible error
Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial	Presence of alternative DNA could change outcome	Record supported denial given contamination and substantial old evidence	No abuse of discretion; decision affirmed

State v. Cookson, 837 A.2d 101 (Me. 2003) (standards for reviewing postconviction DNA motions (clear error/de novo; abuse of discretion))
State v. Donovan, 853 A.2d 772 (Me. 2004) (statutory interpretation of 15 M.R.S. § 2138(10))
State v. Reese, 877 A.2d 1090 (Me. 2005) (trial evidence and DNA contamination in conviction)