State v. Thunderbird

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-19-2015
  • Case #: A154892
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J.; Nakamoto, J.; & Egan, J. Per Curiam.
  • Full Text Opinion

A convicted defendant seeking DNA testing pursuant to ORS 138.690 to 138.698 must identify specific evidence to be tested that was gathered during the prosecution process.

Defendant was convicted in 1996 of multiple sexual offenses. Pursuant to ORS 138.690 to 138.698, Defendant moved the trial court for DNA testing on evidence, claiming that the testing would provide exculpatory evidence that he was not the malefactor. The trial court denied Defendant's motion. On appeal, Defendant argues that he adequately described the evidence to be tested, including bodily fluids, sperm, reproductive cells, or saliva. Defendant provided an affidavit stating that testing of that evidence would be exculpatory. The Court disagreed, and articulated that, under ORS 138.692, Defendant was required to identify specific items gathered as evidence in prosecution of the case in order to fulfill the requirements of ORS 138.690 to 138.698. Defendant's motion was too generalized, and did not specify any particular piece of evidence to be DNA tested. Affirmed.

Advanced Search