State v. Hernandez
303 Kan. 609
| Kan. | 2016Background
- In 2003 Hernandez was convicted of rape and related sex offenses against his then-13‑year‑old daughter; bedding and towels from the home and a box of condoms were collected by police.
- Hernandez petitioned under K.S.A. 21‑2512 (postconviction DNA testing) seeking testing of C.H.'s sheet, Hernandez' sheets/comforter, and towels; the State acknowledged the items remained in custody.
- The district court held a nonevidentiary hearing, denied the petition summarily, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The district court relied on (1) the absence of DNA evidence at trial and (2) Hernandez’s failure to specify how testing would produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review and held the district court applied incorrect legal standards; it reversed and remanded for a hearing under the correct statutory standard.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for denial after a nonevidentiary hearing | District court erred as a matter of law in denying relief | District court applied discretion correctly | Denial after a nonevidentiary hearing is a question of law subject to unlimited review (State v. Johnson controls) |
| Whether petitioner must prove existence of biological material before testing | Petition alleged items were "believed to contain biological material"; that plus State silence suffices | Petitioner must point to information indicating biological material exists on items | Court need not resolve split of authority here; Hernandez's allegation plus State’s non‑rebuttal and CSI report met the threshold |
| Meaning of K.S.A. 21‑2512(c) — burden to show testing "may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence" | Need only show testing may tend to disprove a material fact; petitioner need not prove certainty or make detailed predictions | Petitioner must show likelihood testing would affect verdict; absence of defendant DNA would be irrelevant given testimony about condom use | The statute requires only that testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence; it does not require certainty or specific predictive allegations; courts must not weigh evidence at this stage (Bruner, Lackey) |
| Whether summary denial without appointment of counsel or evidentiary hearing was proper | District court should have applied K.S.A. 21‑2512(c) and, given allegations, appoint counsel and hold a hearing to allow testing | Summary denial appropriate because trial lacked DNA evidence and petitioner failed to specify how testing would help | Court reversed: district court applied incorrect legal standards and must remand for hearing using correct statutory framework; determination of impact on verdict is for post‑test analysis under subsection (f) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 299 Kan. 890, 327 P.3d 421 (Kan. 2014) (standard of review for nonevidentiary denials under K.S.A. 21‑2512)
- Bruner v. State, 277 Kan. 603, 88 P.3d 214 (Kan. 2004) (petitioner need not make detailed assertions of how testing will be exculpatory; appointment of counsel and hearing may be required)
- State v. Lackey, 295 Kan. 816, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012) (district court must not conflate ordering testing with weighing evidence; scope of initial inquiry limited)
- Haddock v. State, 295 Kan. 738, 286 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2012) (evidence may be exculpatory without exonerating; jury impact evaluated post‑testing)
- Wimbley v. State, 292 Kan. 796, 275 P.3d 35 (Kan. 2011) (subsection (a)(1) read broadly to include material related to investigation or prosecution)
- State v. Rodriguez, 302 Kan. 85, 350 P.3d 1083 (Kan. 2015) (biological material beyond semen—saliva, cells—can yield DNA)
- State v. Aikins, 261 Kan. 346, 932 P.2d 408 (Kan. 1997) (defining exculpatory evidence as evidence tending to disprove a material fact)
- State v. Carmichael, 240 Kan. 149, 727 P.2d 918 (Kan. 1986) (quoted for exculpatory evidence definition)