State v. Collins, 234 N.C. App. 398

Background

In 2003 Collins was indicted for first-degree murder; in 2005 he entered an Alford plea to second-degree murder and received 157–198 months imprisonment.
In December 2009 Collins filed a pro se motion for post-conviction DNA testing of items related to the homicide; he later filed an amended affidavit and counsel was appointed.
The trial court held proceedings in March 2013, then—while sitting in another county but within the same judicial district—entered a written order on April 11, 2013 denying the motion.
The denial rested on findings that Collins had not shown (1) how requested testing was material to his defense and (2) what “newer and more accurate testing” would be or how it would be significantly more probative or likely to contradict prior results.
Collins appealed, arguing the April 11 order was void for lack of jurisdiction (entered out of session without consent) and alternatively that the court erred in denying DNA testing under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-269.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Collins)	Held
Jurisdiction of out-of-session order	Section 7A-47.1 permits entry of non-jury orders out of session within the district; no consent required	April 11 written order was entered after the Craven County session ended and without Collins’s consent, so it is null and void under Trent/Boone	Court: Order was valid under § 7A-47.1 because the hearing occurred in Craven County, the matter was non-jury, and judge remained in the district; jurisdiction upheld
Applicability of § 15A-269 to requested testing	§ 15A-269 governs DNA testing of biological evidence; Collins seeks conclusive testing (not merely demonstrating absence of DNA) so statute applies	Collins contended § 15A-269 applies and his amended affidavit supplied new testing techniques (e.g., touch DNA) and materiality	Court: § 15A-269 applies; Collins’s request is cognizable under the statute
Sufficiency of allegations to show newer tests are significantly more accurate	The State argued Collins’s allegations were conclusory and failed to identify how new methods would be more probative or likely to contradict prior results	Collins relied on amended affidavit claiming newer methods exist and would likely have produced exculpatory results, which would have changed his decision to plead	Court: Allegations were conclusory (naming touch DNA without technical comparison) and insufficient under § 15A-269(a)(3); denial affirmed
Burden and standard for post-conviction DNA testing	The State maintained Collins must prove materiality and a reasonable probability the test would change the outcome; conclusory assertions fail	Collins argued his amended affidavit met the preponderance standard and specific facts supported materiality	Court: Defendant bears the burden by a preponderance; trial court’s factual findings supported by evidence; conclusions reviewed de novo; Collins failed to meet burden

Key Cases Cited

State v. Trent, 359 N.C. 583 (2005) (orders affecting rights must be entered in term/session unless statutory authority or consent)
Capital Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 337 N.C. 150 (1994) (statutory authority under § 7A-47.1 and Rule 6(c) can validate out-of-session orders)
State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284 (1984) (out-of-session/term orders affecting rights are invalid absent consent or statutory authority)
Baker v. Varser, 239 N.C. 180 (1954) (description of in-chambers/vacation jurisdiction of superior court judges)
House of Style Furniture Corp. v. Scronce, 33 N.C. App. 365 (1977) (judge generally may not hear or decide matters outside the county where action is pending absent consent or statute)
State v. Foster, 729 S.E.2d 116 (N.C. App. 2012) (conclusory assertions insufficient to show materiality for post-conviction DNA testing)
State v. Gardner, 742 S.E.2d 352 (N.C. App. 2013) (standard of review and burden for post-conviction DNA testing analogous to motions for appropriate relief)