Criminal Law: Post-Conviction Motion-DNA Testing

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing, arguing that items seized during the murder investigation could be subject to DNA testing methods not available during his 1992 trial. The state opposed the motion, arguing that defendant had failed to allege that those items were retained or could not have been DNA tested prior to trial and that there was other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

Where defendant had failed to plead that any of the evidence had been retained after being initially seized or was currently available for testing, and where defendant was not entitled to retesting simply due to advancements in DNA testing technology, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion, especially where there was other substantial evidence linking him to the crime.

Judgment is affirmed.

State v. Caudill (MLW No. 80559/Case No. WD85603– 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Pfeiffer, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Nodaway County, Herron, J. (John W. Caudill, Licking, appellant pro se) (Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent)