Commonwealth v. Donald (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-075-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11348 COMMONWEALTH vs. STANLEY DONALD. Middlesex. November 4, 2013. ‑ May 6, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Practice, Criminal, Postconviction relief. Evidence, Scientific test. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 19, 1997. The cases were tried before Robert A. Barton, J., and motions for access to and scientific analysis of biological evidence, filed on March 15 and April 20, 2012, were considered by Diane M. Kottmyer, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Thomas D. Frothingham for the defendant. Hallie White Speight, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Lisa M. Kavanaugh, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Denise McWilliams, & Elizabeth A. Lunt, for Committee for Public Counsel Services Innocence Program & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. William M. Taylor, for the Innocence Network, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. DUFFLY, J. In April, 1999, Stanley Donald was convicted by a Superior Court jury on two indictments charging aggravated rape, as well as indictments charging unarmed robbery, kidnapping, carjacking, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Evidence at trial indicated that Donald’s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile matched that of sperm found on underwear worn by the victim on the day of the offense. For approximately ten years, Donald has sought, unsuccessfully, to have the sperm sample analyzed with a newer and more sophisticated technique for DNA testing; he also has requested that initial DNA tests be performed on other biological evidence. Following the Legislature’s enactment of G. L. c. 278A, “An Act providing access to forensic and scientific evidence,” see St. 2012, c. 38, Donald filed two motions pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (§ 3 motions), again seeking the more sophisticated DNA testing. A Superior Court judge denied his first motion on the ground that DNA testing already had been conducted, and also denied his renewed motion, noting that the evidence against Donald was overwhelming. Donald appealed from the denial of his renewed § 3 motion, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. In Commonwealth v. Wade, 467 Mass. 496, 501-506 (2014), we considered the threshold requirements that must be met by a party seeking scientific testing or forensic analysis pursuant to G. L. c. 278A, § 3, and the […]