State v. Neese
239 Ariz. 84
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- Between 1999–2004 multiple Scottsdale residential burglaries produced DNA evidence; analysts created a unique DNA profile from multiple crime-scene samples.
- A federal DNA database search produced no match, so on March 15, 2005 the State indicted “John Doe I,” listing the DNA profile (genetic markers) instead of a name.
- In May 2011 police obtained a DNA sample from Robert Neese that matched the John Doe DNA profile; the State then filed an amended indictment naming Neese and arrested him.
- Neese moved to dismiss counts for offenses older than seven years, arguing the John Doe DNA indictment did not identify a known person and therefore did not toll the statute of limitations.
- The trial court denied dismissal; a jury convicted Neese of multiple burglaries and thefts, and he was sentenced to 22.75 years. The Court of Appeals affirmed but corrected a typographical error in the sentencing minute entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a John Doe indictment that lists a unique DNA profile tolls the statute of limitations | State: Filing a John Doe indictment that recites a unique DNA profile commences prosecution and tolls the statute of limitations | Neese: A DNA profile is merely evidence and does not identify a known person; thus indictment did not toll the limitations period and failed to provide notice | The court held a John Doe indictment containing a sufficiently detailed, unique DNA profile identifies the defendant with reasonable certainty and tolls the limitations period when filed timely |
| Whether the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss | Neese: An evidentiary hearing was required to resolve identification/limitation issues | State: The issue was legal, not factual, so no hearing was necessary | No abuse of discretion; no factual dispute warranted an evidentiary hearing |
| Speedy trial claim based on delay between 2005 indictment and 2011 amended indictment | Neese: The six-year delay between indictment and amendment violated his speedy trial rights | State: Delay resulted from lack of a named suspect until DNA matched Neese; no prejudice shown | No fundamental error; Neese failed to show prejudice or bad faith by the State |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument referencing time lapse and missing property | Neese: Prosecutor’s comments were improper and prejudicial | State: Comments were a permissible rebuttal to defense argument about absence of recovered property | No misconduct or prejudice shown given DNA evidence linking Neese to scenes |
| Sentencing minute entry incorrectly listed felony class for Count 5 | State/Defense: N/A (court and parties recognized clerical error) | Neese: N/A | Court amended the sentencing minute entry to correctly reflect Count 5 as a class 2 felony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dabney, 663 N.W.2d 366 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (upholding John Doe complaint/warrant that described suspect by DNA profile)
- State v. Burdick, 395 S.W.3d 120 (Tenn. 2012) (DNA profile sufficiently identifies accused for arrest/warrant purposes)
- People v. Robinson, 224 P.3d 55 (Cal. 2010) (arrest warrant describing defendant by DNA profile meets particularity requirements)
- State v. Carlson, 845 N.W.2d 827 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014) (DNA profile satisfies identification and particularity standards)
- Taylor v. Cruikshank, 214 Ariz. 40 (App. 2006) (distinguishable: statute of limitations had already run before John Doe DNA indictment)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
- State v. Danley, 853 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pleas 2006) (statute of limitations tolled when John Doe DNA warrant served on defendant)