Opinion ID: 889444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 9 This is our seminal decision regarding postconviction DNA testing under § 46-21-110, MCA. At issue on appeal are the District Court's determinations under § 46-21-110(5)(b), (c), (e), MCA, which involve, respectively, the chain of custody of the evidence to be tested, whether identity was or should have been an issue at trial, and whether the DNA testing would establish whether the petitioner was the perpetrator of the crime of which he was convicted. We conclude that these determinations are mixed questions of fact and law, subject to de novo review. See United States v. Fasano, 577 F.3d 572, 575 (5th Cir.2009) (similar chain-of-custody and likelihood-of-innocence determinations under federal DNA testing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3600(a)(4), (a)(8), subject to de novo review); Illinois v. Urioste, 316 Ill. App.3d 307, 249 Ill.Dec. 512, 736 N.E.2d 706, 710 (2000) (question of whether identity was an issue under similar statute subject to de novo review); see also United States v. Jordan, 594 F.3d 1265, 1269-70 (10th Cir.2010) (Lucero, J., concurring) (explaining propriety of de novo review); but see e.g. Washington v. Riofta, 166 Wash.2d 358, 209 P.3d 467, 473 (2009) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review).