State v. Blake, 123836

Charles D. Blake was convicted in 2005 of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Victim (10-year-old) reported digital anal penetration; medical exam found anal lacerations and two rectal swabs were taken (first inconclusive, second matched Blake).
Penile and scrotal swabs from Blake tested negative or inconclusive for victim DNA; fingernail scrapings were collected but never tested and later destroyed by court order.
In 2020 Blake filed a pro se motion under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-2512 seeking testing/retesting of various swabs and extracts and claimed newer DNA methods could yield more accurate results.
District court found remaining state-held items already tested, destroyed items unavailable, Blake offered only conclusory statements about new techniques and discrepancies, and denied testing and an evidentiary hearing; Blake appealed.

Issue	Blake's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred denying postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512	Testing/retesting penile glans, penile shaft/extract, and rectal extract with modern techniques likely to produce more accurate, exculpatory results	Files/records show testing cannot produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence; Blake gave only conclusory claims about new techniques	Affirmed — Blake failed to show qualifying material or a reasonable likelihood retesting would produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence; no evidentiary hearing required

State v. Hernandez, 303 Kan. 609 (2016) (standard of review and definition of exculpatory DNA evidence)
State v. Lackey, 295 Kan. 816 (2012) (district court must assess whether testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence and prerequisites for qualifying material)
State v. Denney, 278 Kan. 643 (2004) (statutory extension of postconviction DNA testing to aggravated sodomy on equal protection grounds)
State v. Johnson, 299 Kan. 890 (2014) (DNA evidence may be exculpatory if it tends to establish innocence based on identity)
State v. Davis, 313 Kan. 244 (2021) (issues not briefed on appeal are considered waived)