A “DNA Complaint” Which Names an “Unknown Defendant” Identifies a Defendant With “Reasonable Certainty” And Tolls Any Applicable Limitations Period

State v. Carlson, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2014.  Back in 2006 a residential burglary occurred in St. Louis Park.  The burglar took various items, including the homeowners’ 2006 Dodge Charger.  Police found a few blood drops throughout the residence and later found an energy drink can in the abandoned Dodge Charger.  After a while, forensics matched the DNA from the blood to the DNA from the energy drink can.  Just before the statute of limitations expired the state filed a complaint charging one “John Doe” with second degree burglary.  The criminal complaint identified this “John Doe” as an unknown male with a 15-loci DNA profile.  Time went by and eventually the BCA matched the DNA from the blood and energy drink can with the DNA profile of Mr. Carlson right down to the fifteenth loci.

Mr. Carlson moved to dismiss the Complaint, saying that it had not identified him with reasonable certainty and thus the state had failed to charged him within the limitations period.  The trial court denied that motion.  Among other reasons, the trial court pointed to the language of Rule 3.02, subd. 1, which requires an unknown defendant to be described by “any name or description by which the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty.”  The trial court reasoned that if Mr. Carlson were right then this language had no meaning.  The court of appeals upholds the trial court.

It turns out that of the eight states that have taken up this question only Kansas has found this description of a defendant insufficient.  But that was because Kansas was working with only a 2-loci DNA profile.  The court of appeals goes with the other states that have approved such a charging document.  Indeed, the court hints that a 15-loci DNA profile description is even better than the perp’s name and date of birth.

Although unnecessary to do so the court also addresses the limitations question.  A “DNA complaint” filed within the limitations period is timely.  The court leaves some room to argue that a particular defendant has been prejudiced by resort to a DNA profile charging document.  Important to Mr. Carlson, however, was that he did not move to dismiss the complaint on speedy trial grounds.  Delays that occurred after the initial DNA profile complaint may be addressed on a case by case basis.