State v. Byers, 263 N.C. App. 231

Terraine Sanchez Byers was convicted (Mar. 3, 2004) of first‑degree murder and first‑degree burglary for the stabbing death of ex‑girlfriend Shanvell Burke; sentenced to life without parole plus a concurrent term for burglary.
At the scene officers found Byers leaving through a broken door window, he had a hand laceration, and a knife with a broken blade was recovered; multiple DNA samples at trial matched Byers or the victim.
Byers filed a pro se motion for post‑conviction DNA testing (July 31, 2017) seeking testing of untested clothing and other items, alleging he arrived after the attack, was himself attacked by an unknown man in a plaid jacket, and that testing could identify an alternate perpetrator.
The trial court denied the motion (Aug. 3, 2017), finding Byers failed to show that DNA testing would be material to his defense; Byers appealed the denial under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A‑269.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not err in deciding before receiving an inventory of evidence, but erred in concluding Byers failed to plead materiality and remanded for further proceedings (majority; one dissent).

Issue	Byers' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying DNA testing before receiving the custodial inventory	Trial court must obtain/review statutorily required inventory before ruling on a §15A‑269 motion	Denial was proper; appeal of inventory issues improper or waived	Court: No error — §15A‑269(b) requires the court to evaluate statutory materiality factors and is not conditioned on receiving the inventory first
Whether Byers was entitled to appointment of counsel because DNA testing may be material	Byers alleged indigence, detailed alternate‑perpetrator theory, identified items to test, and pointed to untested blood that could show a third party	State argued allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show materiality	Court: Trial court erred — Byers' motion sufficiently pleaded materiality to trigger appointment of counsel and further consideration of testing
Whether Byers’ allegations met the high materiality standard for post‑conviction DNA testing	Byers said testing could corroborate his version (arrival after attack; being attacked by unknown assailant) and identify another perpetrator	State emphasized strong trial evidence of guilt and argued lack of plausible third‑party evidence	Court: Weighing probative value against trial evidence, the motion met the materiality threshold and reversal/remand required

State v. Byers, 175 N.C. App. 280 (N.C. Ct. App.) (prior direct appeal affirming convictions)
State v. Lane, 370 N.C. 508 (N.C. 2018) (materiality requires reasonable probability the verdict would have been more favorable)
State v. Cox, 245 N.C. App. 307 (N.C. Ct. App.) (burden on movant to show materiality; standards for appointment of counsel)
State v. Doisey, 240 N.C. App. 441 (N.C. Ct. App.) (inventory under §15A‑269 is ancillary; purpose of DNA testing statute)
State v. Daughtry, 340 N.C. 488 (N.C. 1995) (DNA is highly probative of perpetrator identity)
State v. Gardner, 227 N.C. App. 364 (N.C. Ct. App.) (materiality for appointment of counsel is as demanding as for testing)
State v. Collins, 234 N.C. App. 398 (N.C. Ct. App.) (defendant must give specific reasons testing would be more probative)
State v. Floyd, 237 N.C. App. 300 (N.C. Ct. App.) (materiality higher than mere relevancy)
Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205 (N.C. 1990) (statutory construction presumes legislative intent to give effect to provisions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable‑probability standard for prejudice under Sixth Amendment)