State v. Griffin
2016 Utah LEXIS 90
Utah2016Background
- In 1984 Bradley Perry was murdered at a Texaco in Perry, Utah; bloody one-dollar bills and hairs were collected from the scene and vacuumings. Decades later DNA testing implicated Glenn Howard Griffin.
- In 2005 nuclear DNA from blood on a bloody dollar bill matched Griffin; mtDNA from hairs in vacuumings did not exclude him.
- Griffin was tried, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life without parole. He appealed; the Utah Supreme Court remanded limited ineffective-assistance issues for a rule 23B hearing and stayed other claims.
- The trial court held the rule 23B proceedings, found no actual conflict of interest for limited counsel (Demler), and admitted the nuclear DNA and mtDNA evidence after resolving chain-of-custody and foundation questions.
- On this direct appeal the Utah Supreme Court reviewed admissibility of nuclear DNA and mtDNA evidence, confrontation/hearsay issues, Rule 702/403 challenges to expert mtDNA testimony, motions to dismiss, and ineffective-assistance/conflict claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Griffin) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility — nuclear DNA (chain of custody/authentication) | Chain had missing links; evidence not authenticated and may have been contaminated, so inadmissible. | State accounted for handling from 1984 to testing in 2005; any weak links go to weight, not admissibility. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; authentication sufficient and weak links for jury to weigh. |
| Use of Detective Beard’s notes — hearsay / Confrontation Clause | Notes were testimonial hearsay; unavailable author prevented cross-examination, violating Crawford. | Notes were routine, non-testimonial records used to decide admissibility under Rule 104(a); Confrontation Clause not implicated. | Notes were non-testimonial; use under Rule 104(a) did not violate hearsay rules or Sixth Amendment. |
| Admissibility — mtDNA hair evidence (chain, expert stats, Rule 403) | Chain incomplete; contamination possible; mtDNA is exclusionary, geographically clustered, not definitive; expert stats unreliable/misleading thus unfairly prejudicial. | State established continuous custody and foundation; mtDNA statistical method is generally accepted (SWGDAM); limitations were disclosed and go to weight. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: chain sufficiently established; expert testimony admissible under Rule 702; mtDNA not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. |
| Actual conflict / ineffective-assistance (limited counsel Demler) | Demler’s prior representation of Archuletta (who told investigators info implicating Griffin) created an actual conflict causing structural error and presumed prejudice. | Representations were not concurrent; Demler’s role was limited and he vigorously cross-examined Britt; no evidence Demler acted to advance his own interests. | No actual conflict found; no structural error and no presumed prejudice; ineffective-assistance claims fail under Strickland where applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bradshaw, 680 P.2d 1036 (Utah 1984) (chain-of-custody standard: evidence admissible if shown substantially in same condition and no proof of tampering)
- State v. Eagle Book, Inc., 583 P.2d 73 (Utah 1978) (presumption of regularity once state custody established; burden on defendant to show tampering)
- State v. Wynia, 754 P.2d 667 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (chain-of-custody issues affect weight not admissibility absent bad faith)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial out-of-court statements; nontestimonial hearsay admissible)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (to establish Sixth Amendment conflict, defendant must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance)
- United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2004) (mtDNA evidence and statistical methods can be admissible when method is generally accepted)