State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850

Background

In 2000 LaPointe was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault based mainly on accomplice Michael Norton’s testimony and an eyewitness identification; no forensic evidence linked LaPointe to the crime at trial.
Hairs were found on clothing recovered near the scene; at trial a hair-expert testified the hairs probably did not belong to LaPointe but that this did not preclude he had worn the garments.
In 2014 LaPointe moved for postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512; the district court ordered testing despite the State's objections about statutory eligibility.
DNA testing produced two usable hair results: one conclusively excluded LaPointe; the other was inconclusive but more likely excluded him.
The district court denied a new trial, finding no reasonable probability the DNA results would have produced a different verdict; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court: (1) affirmed denial of a new trial; (2) held a Kansas detainer made LaPointe "in state custody" for the statute; and (3) rejected extending statutory eligibility beyond convictions for first-degree murder and rape, overruling Cheeks I to that extent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether favorable postconviction DNA requires a new trial	LaPointe: excluded hairs materially undermine accomplice and eyewitness testimony and create reasonable probability of different outcome	State: jury already knew hairs likely not LaPointe; strongest evidence was accomplice and eyewitness testimony, so DNA would not change result	Denied—court did not abuse discretion; DNA was favorable but not of such materiality to create reasonable probability of different verdict
Whether LaPointe was "in state custody" when in federal prison with a Kansas detainer	LaPointe: detainer and pending Kansas sentence meant he was in state custody when he filed	State: physical custody by federal authorities means not "in state custody"	Held: detainer and attendant restraints suffice; LaPointe was in state custody for the statute
Whether K.S.A. 21-2512 applies to convictions other than 1st‑degree murder or rape (Equal Protection)	LaPointe: sentence severity (long term) makes him similarly situated to those covered by statute per Cheeks I	State: Legislature may limit statute by crime; crimes here (robbery/assault) are not equivalent to murder or rape	Held: statute limited to convictions specified (murder/rape); overrules Cheeks I to extent it used sentence length as the determinative comparator; LaPointe not similarly situated
Whether the State may appeal via question reserved after final judgment	State: sought review of statutory eligibility questions reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3)	LaPointe: (implicit) prior interlocutory attempt was premature; now case is final	Held: Questions reserved present statewide issues of uniform administration; review appropriate on final judgment

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cheeks, 298 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2013) (majority previously extended postconviction DNA testing based on sentence severity—overruled in part)
Haddock v. State, 295 Kan. 738 (Kan. 2012) (standard for assessing impact of postconviction DNA testing; reasonable-probability/new-trial framework)
Haddock v. State, 282 Kan. 475 (Kan. 2006) (categorization of DNA test results and procedural consequences)
State v. Rodriguez, 302 Kan. 85 (Kan. 2015) (postconviction DNA excluding third‑party DNA did not compel new trial where jury heard explanations and identification remained central)
State v. Denney, 278 Kan. 643 (Kan. 2004) (elements-based similarly situated analysis comparing crimes for DNA-test eligibility)
State v. Salas, 289 Kan. 245 (Kan. 2009) (rejected broader equivalence where crime elements differ)