Wayne v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 6/12/2013. Mr. Wayne is serving a life sentence for the murder of Mona Armendariz, which occurred back in 1986. In February, 2012, Mr. Wayne filed a motion to have Armendariz’s underwear tested for DNA. He made this motion under Minn.Stat. 590.01, subd. 1a, which authorizes such testing under delineated circumstances. One of the requirements that must be shown is that the evidence sought to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it hasn’t been messed with. Mr. Wayne admitted in his pleading that he didn’t even know if the underwear still existed.
This was enough for Justice Page to say that the request was properly denied. Justice Page went on, however, much to the annoyance of Justice Stras, to say that Mr. Wayne had also not established that such testing was materially relevant to his assertion of actual innocence, which is another requirement for testing. And, again to Justice Stas’s annoyance, Justice Page also said that if, as the trial court had done, the court treated the 1a motion as a full blown petition it was untimely and did not meet any of the limitations exceptions.
Justice Stras concurred in the result only. He would have stopped with the first conclusion, lack of proof of an adequate chain of custody. He then hinted that he thinks that a 1a motion is subject to the two year limitations period.
The new justice, Justice Lillehaug, did not participate in the decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment