Opinion ID: 2679922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Changed Condition

Text: [¶36] The post-conviction court also found that “clearly [the clothes] were not in the same condition [as] when they were last worn,” and that they were “not in substantially the same condition as when the crime was committed.” The Court again defers to this finding, stating, “[T]he clothing [Vantol] turned over [to police] in 2001 does not even grossly match the clothing he said he had worn while committing the murders.” Court’s Opinion ¶ 19. However, Vantol admitted that these were the clothes that he was wearing during the homicides. Because prima facie evidence does not depend on the credibility of the evidence, Cookson II, 2011 ME 53, ¶ 8, 17 A.3d 1208, the court must infer that these were the same clothes worn during the homicides. Again, Cookson does not dispute the court’s finding that the clothing is degraded, but argues that it is irrelevant for determining whether there is prima facie evidence of a chain of custody. [¶37] At this stage, section 2138(4-A)(B) does not require Cookson to show that the evidence on the clothing is not degraded. The testing may demonstrate that the evidence on the clothing had deteriorated to the point that DNA analysis is impossible. However, if the evidence on the clothing has not deteriorated, then testing may be performed to determine whether the clothing contains any DNA from the victims, Vantol, or Cookson. Without the technology for extracting a testable sample from the clothing and absent scientific knowledge about the testing 22 requirements, Cookson is wholly unable to meet this burden. Only the DNA analysis will reveal whether there is any evidence on the clothing that can be tested, and thus, the court’s interpretation of section 2138(4-A)(B) is an unreasonable and illogical construction of the DNA analysis statute. See State v. Aboda, 2010 ME 125, ¶ 10, 8 A.3d 719 (stating that in construing a statute “[w]e seek to . . . avoid[] results that are absurd, inconsistent, unreasonable, or illogical.” (quotation marks omitted)).