People v. Pitts, 4 N.Y.3d 306 (2005)

There is no time limit for bringing a post-conviction motion requesting DNA testing under CPL 440.30(1-a), and the burden is on the People, not the defendant, to establish the existence and availability of the evidence for testing.

Summary

This case clarifies the requirements for post-conviction DNA testing motions in New York. The Court of Appeals held that there is no due diligence requirement or time limit for bringing a motion under CPL 440.30(1-a). Further, the burden of proving the existence and availability of DNA evidence for testing rests on the People, not the defendant. The Court affirmed the denial of Pitts’ motion due to lack of reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict, but reversed and remitted Barnwell’s case, finding the People’s evidence regarding the evidence’s destruction insufficient.

Facts

In People v. Pitts, the defendant was convicted of rape. The victim waited two days before reporting the crime. No forensic evidence linked Pitts to the crime, and the defense expert explained this by the victim cleaning herself. Pitts sought post-conviction DNA testing. In People v. Barnwell, the defendant was convicted based on the victim’s identification. Barnwell sought DNA testing of hairs, semen, and a cigarette butt. The People claimed the evidence was destroyed.

Procedural History

In Pitts, the Monroe County Court denied the motion without a hearing, citing lack of due diligence and failure to show DNA evidence existed. The Appellate Division affirmed. In Barnwell, the Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, citing the People’s assertion of evidence destruction and lack of due diligence. The Appellate Division affirmed, requiring the defendant to show the evidence’s existence and availability.

Issue(s)

1. Does CPL 440.30(1-a) impose a due diligence requirement, limiting the time for bringing a post-conviction DNA testing motion?
2. Does a defendant bear the burden of establishing that the specified DNA evidence exists and is available for testing?

Holding

1. No, because CPL 440.30(1-a) contains no language imposing a time limitation or due diligence requirement on motions for DNA testing.
2. No, because it is the People who must demonstrate what evidence exists and whether it is available for testing, given their role as the evidence’s custodian.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the statute’s language doesn’t impose a time limit or due diligence requirement. The Court emphasized the importance of DNA testing in exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, citing the legislature’s intent. “[T]hese statutory requirements—setting forth a standard different from that applied in other CPL article 440 motions to vacate convictions involving newly discovered evidence and expanding the class of defendants to whom testing is available—reflect the vital importance and potential exonerating power of DNA testing.” The Court placed the burden on the People to show what evidence exists because they are the gatekeepers of the evidence. Regarding Pitts, the Court affirmed denial because, given the victim’s delay in reporting and lack of initial forensic evidence, there was no reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict. Regarding Barnwell, the Court reversed because the People’s assertion of evidence destruction was insufficient; they needed to provide “reliable information” such as “an affidavit from an individual with direct knowledge of the status of the evidence or an official record indicating its existence or nonexistence.”