Washington v. State
148 A.3d 341
Md.2016Background
- Trendon Washington was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder (not murder) and sentenced to life; other charges were unresolved.
- Police recovered two .45 shell casings and a bloody broom and dustpan at the scene; the broom and dustpan tested positive for blood but were not DNA-tested at trial.
- Washington filed a pro se petition under Maryland Criminal Procedure § 8-201 seeking postconviction DNA testing of the broom and dustpan.
- The Circuit Court dismissed the petition for lack of standing, reasoning that § 8-201(b) permits DNA petitions only by persons convicted of a “crime of violence” as defined in Criminal Law § 14-101, and conspiracy to commit murder is not listed.
- Washington argued (1) that conspiracy convictions should be covered by § 8-201(b), (2) denial violated due process (Fourteenth Amendment and Maryland Article 24), and (3) denial violated equal protection; the State defended the statutory limitation and its constitutionality.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: conspiracy to commit murder is not a § 14-101 crime of violence, so Washington lacks standing; the statute does not violate due process or equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Washington) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Statutory scope: whether conspiracy to commit murder is petition-eligible under CP § 8-201(b) | § 8-201(b) should be read broadly (and in light of CP § 8-201(j) preservation duties and remedial purpose) to allow a life‑sentenced conspirator to petition for DNA testing | § 8-201(b) expressly limits petitions to persons convicted of a crime of violence under CR § 14‑101; conspiracy is not listed, and Legislature knows how to include conspiracy when intended | Held: Conspiracy to commit murder is not a § 14‑101 crime of violence; Washington lacks standing to file under § 8‑201(b) |
| Statutory preservation duty: whether CP § 8‑201(j) created a right to test because evidence must be preserved | Duty to preserve DNA evidence connected to the murder prosecution creates a right to postconviction testing | CP § 8‑201(j) requires preservation only after conviction of enumerated offenses (murder, rape, etc.); conspiracy not covered | Held: No preservation duty applies to Washington because he was not convicted of the enumerated offenses; no statutory right to test follows |
| Due process: whether denial of access to postconviction DNA testing violates procedural (or substantive) due process | Denial infringes Washington’s residual liberty interest and procedural due process right to pursue evidence of innocence | Maryland’s § 8‑201 procedures are robust and constitutionally adequate; states may limit access; no freestanding substantive right exists | Held: No violation. Maryland’s statutory procedures meet Osborne standards; no fundamental or substantive due process right to postconviction DNA testing was recognized |
| Equal protection: whether excluding conspiracy convictions while including murder/attempted murder violates equal protection | Persons serving identical life sentences (e.g., conspirators) are similarly situated to those convicted of murder/attempted murder; statute is arbitrary | Conspiracy differs: it does not require physical presence/overt act, so DNA evidence is less likely to be probative; Legislature has rational bases (evidence relevance, administrative/fiscal considerations) | Held: Rational‑basis standard applies; statute survives equal protection challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Dist. Atty's Office for the Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (U.S. 2009) (no freestanding substantive due process right to postconviction DNA testing; states may regulate access)
- Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524 (Md. 2009) (standards for review of statutory interpretation in postconviction DNA context)
- Blake v. State, 395 Md. 213 (Md. 2006) (cardinal rule of statutory construction: effectuate Legislature’s intent; examine plain language)
- State v. Cheeks, 298 Kan. 1 (Kan. 2013) (Kansas decision holding sentence‑focused parity required access to DNA testing; discussed and distinguished)
- McKithen v. Brown, 626 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2010) (upholding New York’s postconviction DNA procedure as constitutionally adequate under Osborne)