I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CP - 0 0 8 5 8 - S CT BI LLY DALE H

I LL a / k / a BI LLY D . H

I LL
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 30/ 2012 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CALHOUN COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: BI LLY D ALE H I LL ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A . K LI N G FU SS J OHN R. HENRY, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 29/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . In th is a p p e a l fro m th e d e n ia l o f h is p o s t-c o n v ictio n m o tio n fo r D N A tes tin g , B ill y D al e H i l l cl ai m s thatt he ci r cui tcourthad des tr oyed bi ol ogi cal evi dence w i thout not i f yi ng hi m as r equi r e d b y M i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 99- 49- 1( 3) ( f ) ( i i ) ( 1) ( Supp. 2012) . T he evi dence i n ques t i on w as a l abor at ory sl i de cont ai ni ng w hatw as purpor t ed t o be s perm cel l s col l ect ed dur i ng a 1974 aut ops y. T he onl y r el i ef s oughtby H i l l i s thatw e “or dera ppr opr i at e r emedi es and i m pos e s anct i ons ” bec aus e of the f ai l ur e t o gi ve pr opernot i ce. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 49- 1( 5) ( Supp. 2012) ( “I f the courtf

i nds thatbi ol ogi cal evi dence w as des tr oyed i n vi ol at i on o f th e p ro v isio n s o f th is s e c tio n , it m a y im p o se a p p ro p ria te sa n c tio n s a n d o rd e r a p p ro p ria te

### 2

r emedi es . ”) G i ven t he uncontr adi ct ed pr oof t hatthe ci r cui tcourtdi d nothave the evi dence in q u e stio n , w e fin d n o b a sis fo r H ill ’s c laim , a n d w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. I. ¶ 2 . O n O c to b e r 1 1 , 1 9 7 4 , B ill y D a le H ill w a s tried a n d c o n v icte d o f c a p ital m u rd e r w h ile
e n g a g e d in th e c o m m is s io n o f t h e c ri m e o f r a p e a n d w a s s e n te n c e d to d e a th . H ill v. S ta te ( “H il l I ”) , 339 So. 2d 1 38 2 (M i ss. 1976) . T hi s C our tr ever s ed hi s convi ct i on, and on
r emand, H i l l pl ed gui l ty t o the s epar at e cr i m es of m ur derand r ape a nd w as s ent ence d by the tr ia l j u d g e to tw o c o n s e c u tiv e te rm s o f l if e im p ri s o n m e n t. H

il l v. State ( “H

il l I I ”) , 388 So. 2 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ). ¶ 3 . In a 2 0 1 1 o rd e r, th is C o u rt g ra n ted tw o p o st-c o n v ictio n p e tit io n s filed b y H ill . F irst, the C our tvaca t ed hi s s ent ence of l i f e i n pr i s on f

orthe r ape c onvi ct i on and rem and ed t he
m at t er t o the ci rcui tcou rtforres entenci ng “to a defi nit e term reas on ably exp ect ed to be l ess than l i f e. ” ( Q uot i ng L u c k e tt v. S ta te , 582 So. 2d 428, 430 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . Second, H i l l w as gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d i n the ci r cui tcourtw i th a mot i on forD N A tes t i ng, and the tr i al
c o u rt w a s d ir e c te d to o rd e r t h e te s tin g o f e x is tin g b io lo g ic a l e v id e n c e . ¶4. H i l l had r eques t ed D N A t es t i ng of al l bi ol ogi cal evi dence , butthe onl y evi dence he sp e c ifica lly id e n tified in h is p e tit io n w a s a lab o ra to ry slid e . T o d e m o n stra te th a t th is
e v id e n ce ex ist ed , H il l att ac h ed t o his pe ti ti o n an ex ce rpt f rom th e 1 9 7 4 tri al tran script, i n w hich t he pat hol ogi s tw ho per f or m ed the aut ops y, D r . V an Phi l pot , t es t i f i ed thathe had col l ect ed f

l ui d fr om t he dece as ed’ s vagi na and had pl ace d the s ampl e on a l abor at ory s l i de.

### The c ircui t c le rk’ s of fi cehad r et ained the murde r we apon ( a kni fe ), but Hi lldec lined 1 

### thetria l c ourt ’s off

er to have i t e xam ine d for

te st abl e bi ologi ca l e vide nce . 3 D r . Phi l pots ai d that , af t ervi ew i ng the s ampl e undera mi cr os cope, he had de t erm i ned that it c o n ta in e d s p e rm c e lls . ¶ 5 . A fte r th is C o u rt g ra n ted h is p e tit io n s, H ill tim e ly filed h is m o tio n fo r D N A tes tin g in the C al houn C ount y C i r cui tC our t . T hi s m ot i on w as cons i der ed at an evi dent i ary hear i ng, a lo n g w ith h is re se n ten c in g . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e h e a rin g , the c o u rt se n ten c e d H ill to f or ty- f ouryear s o n t he rape c onvi ct i on, butf ound no avai l abl e r el i ef r egar di ng hi s m ot i on f orD N A t es t i ng. B as ed on the St at e’ s w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony atthe evi dent i ary hear i ng, and the r ecor d f

r om hi s capi t al murde rtr i al , the courtf ound that“no D N A evi dence exi s t s t o be tes ted tha t th e P e tit io n e r re q u e sts to b e tes ted .” A s w ith h is p e tit io n to th is C o u rt, H ill i ni t i al l y had r eques t ed thatthe ci r cui tcourtorde rt he t es t i ng of al l bi ol ogi cal evi dence ; but the onl y i t em ati s s ue dur i ng the evi dent i ary he ar i ng w as the l abor at ory s l i de r ef er ence d by D r. P h ilp o t. 1 II. ¶6. I n the ca s e bef

or e us , H i l l does notchal l enge hi s sent ence and has l i m i t ed hi s appea l t o the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng r egar di ng hi s m ot i on f orD N A t es t i ng. T he i s s ues r ai s ed pr es ent ques t i ons of

f actand ques t i ons of l aw . W hen r evi ew i ng a tr i al court ’ s j udgm enton a pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , i s s ues of

l aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo , butw e w i l l notr ever s e f actual f i ndi ngs unl es s the tr i al court ’ s as s es s m entof the f act s w as “cl ear l y err oneous . ” P r es ley v.

### 4

S ta te , 48 So. 3d 526, 528- 29 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 73 1 S o. 2d 59 5, 59 8 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )) . ¶7. H i l l ar gues that he w as deni ed due pr oces s of l aw , cl ai m i ng that the ci r cui t courthad des tr oyed the l abor at ory s l i de w i thoutgi vi ng hi m not i ce a s r equi re d by M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 9 -4 9 -1 . See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 99- 49- 1( 3) ( f ) ( i i ) ( 1) ( r equi r i ng that , pr i ort o the d estruc ti o n o f bio log ical ev iden ce co ll ec ted d u ri n g the in v esti g ati o n o r pro sec u ti o n o f a
c rim in a l m a tter, th e S tate m u st g iv e n o tice to th e p e rso n (s) c o n v icte d o f th a t cr im e ). W h ile i ti s undi s put ed thatthe courtdes tr oyed s om e of the exhi bi t s f

r om hi s capi t al m ur dert r i al
w i thoutgi vi ng the r equi r ed not i f i cat i on, the tr i al j udge f ound thatthe s l i de w as noti n t he
court ’ s pos s es s i on. I n hi s br i ef , H i l l does notgi ve any e xpl anat i on f orhis asser t i on t o t he
c o n tr a ry , a n d h e d id n o t d is p u te th is fi n d in g o f f a c t in th e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w . ¶8. T he l ow erco urt exam i ned t he r ecor d fr om the 1974 t r i al , and t he onl y exhi bi tf r om the tr ial rel at ed to D r. P hil po t ’s coll ect i ng “sperm cel l s” w as a sum m ary of hi s aut op sy r eport . T he l abor at ory sl i de w as neverre cei ved i nt o evi dence orm arked f ori dent i f i cat i on; and nothi ng i n the tr ans cr i pti ndi cat es w hetherthe s l i de s t i l l w as i n exi s t ence atthe t i m e of tr ia l. ¶9. C al houn C ounty Ci r cui tCl erk D ebor ah D unn t es t i f i ed atthe evi dent i ary hear i ng that
s he had ne vers een the l abor at ory s l i de r ef er ence d by D r . Phi l potdur i ng the var i ous t i m es s he per s onal l y had handl ed the courtf i l e and the exhi bi t s . She al s o t es t i f i ed atl ength aboutthe
s t eps s he t ook t o documentthe cont ent s of the courtf

i l e. A ccor di ng t o D unn, be f or e any of the exhi bi t s f

r om H i l l ’ s capi t al murde rtr i al w er e des tr oyed, s he had t aken a phot ogr aph of

### 5

e v e ry th in g . S h e tes tified th a t th e re w e re so m e e m p ty e n v e lo p e s m a rk e d w ith e x h ib it
num ber s , and thatshe ei therhad keptt he em pty envel opes or had m ade phot ocopi es of the
o u ts id e . ¶ 1 0 . A m p le e v id e n c e e sta b lish e d th a t th e lab o ra to ry slid e w a s n o t sto re d w ith th e c irc u it
court . I ndeed, i tw oul d be unus ual f ora f or ens i c pathol ogi s tt o have de pos i t ed w i th the tr i al
courtany bi ol ogi cal evi dence col l ect ed dur i ng an aut ops y. B eca us e the l abor at ory s l i de w as noti n the court ’ s cus t ody, i tcoul d nothave be en des tr oyed al ong w i th the exhi bi t s i n 2010. W e f i nd no err ori n t he tr i al court ’ s r eac hi ng thi s c oncl us i on, a nd H i l l ’ s bar e as s ert i on t hat the ci r cui tcl erk des tr oyed the s l i de si m ply can notes t abl i s h thatthi s f actual f i ndi ng by t he ci r cui tcourtw as “cl ear l y err oneous . ” P r es ley , 4 8 S o . 3 d a t 5 2 8 -2 9 . III . ¶11. W h ile w e fin d th a t H ill is no t e n tit led to a n y relie f on a p p e a l, w e d o c a ll a tten tio n to the D N A Pr es ervat i on A ctand the dut i es ther eunder . 2009 M i s s . Law s , Ch. 339 ( ef f ect i ve M arch 16 , 20 09 ) ( creat i ng M i ss C od e A nn . § 9 9 -49 -1 ( S up p. 20 12 ) and am end i ng M i ss. C ode A nn. §§ 99- 39- 5 t o 99- 39- 11, 99- 39- 23 ( Supp. 2012) ) . N o publ i s hed dec i s i on f r om th is C o u rt a p p lies o r in terp re ts th e p ro v isio n s o f M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -4 9 -1 , b u t th is
s t atut e mandat es det ai l ed pr ocedur es f orthe pr es ervat i on, des truct i on, an d acces s i bi l i ty of bi ol ogi cal evi dence connec t ed w i th a cr i m e. ¶12. T he l egi s l atur e m ade i t s purpos e cl ear i n s ubs ect i on ( 1) , decl ari ng t hat “si m pl e but
c ru c ial e n h a n c e m e n ts to p ro to c o ls fo r p ro p e rly p re se rv in g b io lo g ica l ev id e n c e c a n so lv e o ld
cr i m es , enhanc e publ i c safet y, and s ett l e cl ai m s of i nnocenc e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 49-

### In cases invo lvin g murder, man slaug hter o r felony sexual assau lt, all evid ence mu st 2 

### be pre se rve d if it

was within t

he St at e’ s pos se ss ion on July 1, 2009. Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 99- 49 -1(4 ) (Supp . 20 12 ). Pri or notif

ic ation m ust be gi ven t o: 3 

### 1. Al l pe rs ons who rem ain in c ust ody as a re sult of thecrim ina l c onvic ti on, del inque ncy a djudi cati on, or commi tm ent

re late d to e vide ncein que stion; 2. Theattor

ney of re cord for

ea ch pe rs on in c ust ody; 3. T he M ississipp i Office o f Ind igent Ap peals; 4. Thedis tric t att orne y in t he c ounty of

convi ction; and 5. T he M ississipp i Atto rneyGen eral. Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-49-1( 3)( f) (i i) (Supp. 2012). In Hi ll ’s ca se , the order authori zing the des tr uction of al l exhibit s trac ked thelangua ge of Mis si ss ippiCode Sec ti on 13-1- 155 (Re v. 2002), whic h gover

ns the de struc ti on of e xhibi ts in c ivi l ca se s. Sec ti on 13- 1-155 r equire s that prior noti cebe giv en to “ theattor neys for al l partie s t o theac ti on and the owne r or per son having c ustody of the prope rty prior to the court ac ti on.”At the e vide nti ar y hearing, thecirc uit cl er k te stif ie d that no one , including Hi ll , wa s noti fi ed that theexhibit s woul d be des troyed. 6 1( 1) ( f ) . Thus , b i ol og i c a l e vi de nc e i n po s s e s s i on o f the St a t e mus tb e p r e s e r ve d i f i tw as s ecur ed “i n r el at i on t o a n i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on of a cr i m e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 49- 1( 3) ( a) ( i )
- ( i i ) . Such evi dence m us tbe r et ai ned “f orthe per i od of

t i m e thatthe cr i m e r emai ns 2
u n so lv e d ” o r “ fo r th e p e rio d o f tim e th a t th e p e rso n c o n v icte d o f th a t cr im e re m a in s in
cus t ody. ” Id . T he evi dence may be des tr oyed pr i ort o the expi r at i on of thes e t i m e per i ods if n o o ther law req u ir es p rese rva ti o n o f th e e v iden ce , if p rop er n o ti fi ca ti o n is give n to a ll l i s t ed i ndi vi dual s and ent i t i es , and i f ther e i s no w r i t t en r eques tf orr et ent i on ort es t i ng m ade
w ith in sixty d ay s o f rece iving n o ti ce . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -49 -1(3 )(f )-( g ). 3

### 7

¶ 1 3 . In a d d itio n to p re s e rv in g e v id e n c e , 

### the statute requ ires th at “[u]po n writtenrequ est by thedef

endant, the statesha llprepar e an inve ntor y of bi ologi ca l e vide ncethat ha s be en prese rv edin co nn ectionwiththe d efend ant’s crimin al case.” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 49- 1( 3) ( e) ( Supp. 2012) . A s a rel at ed du t y, i f the St at e i s as ked t o pr oduce e vi dence w hi ch cannotbe l ocat ed, “the chi ef evi dence cus t odi an ass i gned t o the ent i ty char ged w i t h t he preservati on of sai d ev i den ce sh all provide an aff i dav i ti n w hich the cu st od i an st i pu l at es, underpenal ty of

per j ury, an ac cur at e des cr i pt i on of the ef f or t s t aken t o l ocat e thatevi dence
a n d th a t th e e v id e n c e c o u ld n o t b e lo c a te d .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -4 9 -1 (3 )( i) . ¶14 . N otabl y, this st atute i m po ses var i ou s obli gati on s on a w i de rang e of Stat e agen ci es, o f f i c i a l s , a n d o th e r s . Th e t e r m Stat e i s defi ned as: a n y g o v e rn m e n tal o r p u b lic e n tity w ith in M iss iss ip p i, i n c lu d in g a ll p riv a te ent i t i es thatper f

or m such f

unct i ons , and i t s of

f i ci al s orempl oyees , i ncl udi ng, bu tno tl i m i t ed to, l aw enforcem ent ag en cies, prosecutor s’ off i ces, cou rt s, publ i c hos pi t al s , cr i m e l abor at or i es , and any ot herent i ty ori ndi vi dual char ged w ith th e c o lle c tio n , s to ra g e o r r e tr ie v a l o f b io lo g ic a l e v id e n c e . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 49- 1( 2) ( e) (Supp. 2012). I tbehooves al l per s ons and ent i t i es f al l i ng un der this l i st i ng t o fam i l i ari ze t hem sel ves w i th the D N A P reservati on A ct , pay i ng cl ose att ent i on t o thei rr es pect i ve obl i gat i ons . Fore xampl e, s af eguar ds and pr event i ve meas ur es des i gned t o ens ur e compl i ance w i th thi s s t atut e s houl d be i m pl ement ed, if they ar e not cu rren tl y in p lace . V igil an ce is esse n ti al, g iven that the c o n seq u en ce s for n o n co m p li an ce are i n the hands of

the court s , t o w hi ch the l egi s l atur e has gi ven br oad author i ty. A s not ed i n the f i r s tpa r a gr a ph of

thi s op i ni on , s ub s e c t i on ( 5) pr ov i de s , “ [ i ] f the c ou r tf

i nd s tha tbi ol ogi cal evidence w as destroyed in viol at i on of the p rovi si on s of th is sect i on , i tm ay im po se

### 8

a p p ro p ria te s a n c tio n s a n d o rd e r a p p ro p ria te r e m e d ies ,” a n d w h a t m a y b e “ a p p ro p ria te” in
e a c h c a s e is le ft to th e c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -4 9 -1 (5 ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 2 ). C oncl usi on ¶15. H i l l ’ s appea l is b ased o n an un support ed as s ert i on thata s peci f i c i t em cont ai ni ng pot ent i al l y t es t abl e bi ol og i cal evi dence w as des tr oyed by the ci r cui tcourtw i thoutpr oper n o ti ce . T h e ex h ibit s a n d testi m o n y fro m the ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g , w h ich in clud ed the re co rd fro m h is 1 9 7 4 c a p ital m u rd e r tria l, su p p o rt th e tria l co u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e c irc u it cle rk d id nothave pos s es s i on of thi s evi den ce w hen the ci r cui tcourtor der ed the di s pos al of t he
e x h ib its. M o re o v e r, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e c irc u it co u rt eve rhad poss es s i on of the i t em i n ques t i on. A ccor di ngl y, w e fi nd n o avai l abl e r el i ef and af f i r m the j udgm entof

the tr i al
c o u rt . ¶16. AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NSON AND RAN DO LPH, P. J J . , LA M AR, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.