State v. Bailey, 510 P.3d 1160

Background:

In 1988 Brian C. Bailey was convicted by a Wyandotte County jury of aggravated criminal sodomy based primarily on victim and witness testimony; a hospital rape kit was taken but the State presented no kit testing at trial.
KBI laboratory testing in 1988 reported no seminal fluid or foreign hairs; KBI later reported it no longer possessed the rape kit and the sheriff’s evidence room had no related evidence.
Bailey filed a 2005 postconviction motion seeking DNA testing; the district court found no evidence in State custody and denied relief; Bailey did not pursue that appeal.
In a second DNA-related motion (filed under K.S.A. 60-2606), the district court again found no biological material in State possession and no bad-faith destruction; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed in 2013.
In 2020 Bailey filed a new petition under K.S.A. 21-2512 seeking forensic DNA testing; the district court denied it and Bailey appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court, which affirmed on preclusion grounds.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Bailey's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata/issue preclusion bars Bailey’s third petition for DNA testing	Prior judicial determinations that the State lacks biological material are final; Bailey may not relitigate the statutory thresholds	Each prior filing sought different relief and thus is a different claim; res judicata inapplicable	Held: Preclusion applies; Bailey cannot relitigate possession of biological material and is barred from statutory DNA testing
Whether the Court may consider res judicata raised first on appeal	Appellate court may consider preclusion when it presents a question of law on admitted facts and is dispositive	Argues State failed to preserve the issue at district court so appellate consideration improper	Held: Court exercised discretion to consider the issue under the question-of-law preservation exception
Whether K.S.A. 21-2512(a)(2) threshold (State possession of biological material) is satisfied	No — courts previously found no biological material in State actual or constructive possession	Bailey does not dispute prior findings but argues procedural forms differ and factual questions remain	Held: Prior rulings conclusively established the State lacks the material required under (a)(2); statute does not apply
Whether failure to preserve the rape kit violated due process absent bad faith (Youngblood claim)	No — KBI found no testable biological material, so no bad faith; Youngblood applies	Bailey contends evidence disposition and preservation were not fully resolved	Held: Court of Appeals and trial court correctly applied Youngblood; no bad-faith showing and no due process violation

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (failure to preserve potentially useful evidence violates due process only on a showing of bad faith)
State v. Parry, 305 Kan. 1189 (2017) (appellate courts may raise preclusion doctrines sua sponte when questions of law on admitted facts are dispositive)
State v. Robertson, 298 Kan. 342 (2013) (elements/requirements for applying res judicata in criminal context)
State v. Collier, 263 Kan. 629 (1998) (describes preclusionary doctrines—res judicata, collateral estoppel, law of the case—and their purposes)
In re Care & Treatment of Sporn, 289 Kan. 681 (2009) (res judicata and collateral estoppel discussed in criminal/civil adjudication contexts)
Bogguess v. State, 306 Kan. 574 (2017) (courts must focus on substance over procedural form when applying preclusion doctrines)
State v. Conley, 287 Kan. 696 (2008) (res judicata bars reassertion of issues in motions to correct sentence previously litigated)
State v. Johnson, 269 Kan. 594 (2000) (motions to correct illegal sentence cannot relitigate appellate issues previously abandoned or decided)
State v. Williams, 311 Kan. 88 (2020) (a lower-court judgment may be affirmed on alternative grounds such as issue preclusion)