JOSEPH E. SIMMS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, McDonald, Filed Nov. 23, 2015,
Post-Conviction DNA Testing Statute – CP 8-201 – Not clearly erroneous to deny petitioner opportunity to reopen “what happened to the socks” investigation

This opinion provides a comprehensive look at the Post-Conviction DNA Testing scheme.

Testing – A convicted person may ask a circuit court to order testing of “scientific identification evidence” in possession of the State.

Searching – The court may also order law enforcement to search a database or log. Because the State was the custodian of evidence, the State needs to check any place the evidence could reasonably be found, unless there is a written record that the evidence had been destroyed in accordance with then existing protocol.

Preservation – The statute requires the State to preserve scientific identification evidence that may be subject to testing under the statute for a defined period of time

Failure to Preserve – If evidence that should have been preserved is unavailable as a result of “intentional and willful destruction,” the court is to infer that testing would have been favorable to the petitioner.

Outcomes – If the court orders DNA testing, depending on the results of the test, the court
will either dismiss the petition, open post-conviction proceedings, or order a new trial.

CP 8-201 – Motion to Strike Appearance should be treated like in a civil case

CP 8-201 – Motion to appoint counsel is discretionary, despite the wording of Rule 4-707