State v. Diaz-Avalos

ORS 139.690 provides the guidelines to request a DNA test. A person may request a DNA test if the person is incarcerated "as the result of a conviction for aggravated murder [,] a person felony," murder, or is not in custody but convicted of aggravated murder or sex crime. ORS 139.690. ORS 138.692 then provides that the person furnish an affidavit supporting the motion with evidence and the defense that the DNA would support. Innocent must be proclaimed by the person entering the motion, and the DNA test result must directly support that proclamation of innocence. ORS 138.692(1)(a)(B); (1)(a)(A)(ii);& (1)(b)(A). Those requirements must be satisfied for the court to order the testing.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s order of denial of his request for DNA testing after previously granting the request and then rescinding it. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his request for DNA testing. On appeal, Defendant argued that since he met his burden of innocence via a prima facia case, the trial court should have been triggered to order the DNA testing. In response, the State argued that the Defendant did not satisfy the requirement that he present a prima facie case showing that DNA testing would, assumed for exculpatory results, establish his actual innocence. ORS 139.690 provides the guidelines to request a DNA test. A person may request a DNA test in the circuit court where the conviction was entered if the person is incarcerated “as the result of a conviction for aggravated murder or a person felony” or not in custody but convicted of murder, aggravated murder, or certain sex crimes. ORS 139.690. ORS 138.692 then provides for the person to provide an affidavit supporting the motion with evidence and the defense the DNA would support. Innocent must be proclaimed by the person entering the motion, and the DNA test result must directly support that proclamation of innocence. ORS 138.692(1)(a)(B); (1)(a)(A)(ii); & (1)(b)(A). Those requirements must be satisfied for the court to order the testing. The Court held that the Defendant did not satisfy the requirements because the Defendant was ordering for the DNA testing of the jacket he was wearing on the night of his arrest. The DNA testing would not support the Defendant’s theory that he was not driving the truck that killed the person and would only show that the jacket belonged to someone else. Affirmed.