Washington v. State, 37 A.3d 932

Washington was convicted in 1990 of first degree rape and related offenses and sentenced to life.
He pursued multiple post-conviction challenges culminating in a 2009 petition under Md. Crim. Proc. Art. § 8-201 for DNA testing and related relief.
The circuit court granted a discovery/search order for DNA-related evidence and the State conducted a multi-agency search beginning 2009.
Affidavits and testimony showed the evidence was no longer located and possibly destroyed prior to the 2001 enactment of § 8-201(j).
The hearing court held the State conducted a reasonable search and that § 8-201(j) applies prospectively from Oct. 1, 2001; the motion for a new trial was denied.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the search was reasonable, the evidence was destroyed before the statute’s effective date, and Appellant was not entitled to relief under § 8-201(j) or a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the destruction of evidence was intentional and willful.	Washington-Bey argues the destruction was intentional and warrants relief.	The State contends destruction was not shown to be intentional and willful.	Not clearly erroneous; destruction occurred before 2001 and § 8-201(j) not triggered.
Whether the serological evidence at trial rendered Washington-Bey’s conviction unreliable.	Serology was unreliable and today’s DNA would exonerate him.	Serology was reliable under then-existing standards and unlikely to have altered conviction.	No abuse of discretion; current DNA advances do not render trial serology unreliable.
Whether the State conducted a reasonable search for the evidence as required by § 8-201.	The State failed to account for all possible locations via retention policies.	The search was extensive and covered locations where evidence would plausibly exist.	Circuit Court not clearly erroneous; search was reasonable and evidence no longer exists.
Whether § 8-201(j) applies prospectively or retroactively to Washington-Bey’s case.	Duty to preserve should apply retroactively due to intent to exonerate the innocent.	Duty applies prospectively from Oct. 1, 2001; pre-2001 destruction not sanctionable.	Statute applied prospectively; destruction pre-2001 not subject to § 8-201(j).

Blake v. State, 395 Md. 213 (2006) (duty to locate evidence; NIJ guidance on extensive search)
Blake v. State, 418 Md. 445 (2011) (reasonable search standard after remand; extensive location search)
Arey v. State, 400 Md. 491 (2007) (burden to show evidence no longer exists; need for exhaustive search)
Arey v. State, Arey II, 422 Md. 328 (2011) (remand to assess identity and location of evidence)
Horton v. State, 412 Md. 1 (2009) (hospital searches; exhaustion of search duties)
Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524 (2009) (new trial standard; impact of DNA evidence on conviction)
Thompson v. State, 395 Md. 240 (2006) (substantial possibility standard; evolved DNA testing)
Gregg v. State, 409 Md. 698 (2009) (legislative intent; prospective retroactivity analysis)