State v. Jeffrey C. Denny
2017 WI 17
| Wis. | 2017Background
- In 1982 Jeffrey and Kent Denny were tried jointly and convicted of first-degree murder; Jeffrey received life imprisonment.
- In 2014 Jeffrey moved under Wis. Stat. § 974.07 for postconviction forensic DNA testing of multiple items (bong pieces, hairs, towel, clothing, masks, etc.), seeking testing at public or private expense and comparison to databanks.
- The circuit court denied the motion; the court of appeals reversed and ordered testing; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court majority (Ziegler, J.) overruled part of State v. Moran to hold § 974.07(6) does not independently authorize private testing and interpreted the statute to require testing requests to proceed under § 974.07(7) (court-ordered framework).
- Applying § 974.07(7)(a)(2) (mandatory testing if movant claims innocence and it is reasonably probable he would not have been prosecuted/convicted if exculpatory DNA had existed pretrial), the Court held Denny failed that showing given the extensive inculpatory testimonial evidence; it reversed the court of appeals and affirmed denial of testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 974.07(6) independently authorizes a movant to obtain DNA testing at private expense | State: § 974.07(6) is for disclosure/inspection only; testing must proceed under § 974.07(7) | Denny: Moran established movant can obtain and perform testing at private expense under § 974.07(6) | Held: Overruled Moran to the extent it read § 974.07(6) to authorize independent private testing; § 974.07(6) permits disclosure/inspection but testing requests proceed under § 974.07(7) |
| Whether the court must assume DNA results are exculpatory when evaluating § 974.07(7)(a)(2) | Denny: For the § 974.07(7)(a)(2) inquiry courts should assume testing would be exculpatory and then ask if that would make prosecution/conviction reasonably improbable | State: Focus on whether exculpatory results would create a reasonable probability of different outcome; court may apply a standard akin to reasonable-doubt at retrial | Held: Court assumed exculpatory results for purposes of the statutory test but concluded even under that assumption Denny did not meet § 974.07(7)(a)(2) |
| Application of § 974.07(7)(a)(2): whether exculpatory DNA would make it reasonably probable Denny would not have been prosecuted/convicted | Denny: Absent his DNA on numerous relevant items (or a match to a third party/offender), testimony tying him to the scene would be undermined and a different result was reasonably probable | State: Large body of testimonial evidence (multiple inculpatory statements, corroborating acts) makes reversal unlikely even with exculpatory DNA | Held: The Court agreed with State and circuit court — given extensive inculpatory witness testimony and facts, exculpatory DNA would not make it reasonably probable Denny would not have been prosecuted/convicted; motion properly denied |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion or erred in law in denying testing | Denny: Court misapplied standards and failed to credit how exclusionary DNA across many items could undermine testimonial case | State: Circuit court correctly applied § 974.07(7)(a)(2) to the full record and reasonably denied testing | Held: Court affirmed circuit court (no reversible error); denial stands and court of appeals reversed judgment is reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moran, 284 Wis. 2d 24 (Wis. 2005) (earlier reading of § 974.07(6) as authorizing private testing; overruled in part)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Hudson, 273 Wis. 2d 707 (Ct. App. 2004) (standard of review discussion for § 974.07 motions)
- State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463 (Wis. 1997) (reasonable-probability/newly discovered evidence framing referenced)
- Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 264 Wis. 2d 60 (Wis. 2003) (criteria for overturning precedent)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (U.S. 2013) (noting significance and utility of DNA identification)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (definition of "reasonable probability" referenced)