Opinion ID: 1303270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion For Leave to Move For New Trial on After-Discovered Evidence

Text: We also find that Ford's motion for leave to move for a new trial based upon after discovered evidence must be denied. Ford's motion was based on the ground that DNA identification procedures utilized by Lifecodes and introduced at trial were substantially discredited in People v. Castro , 144 Misc. (2d) 956, 545 N.Y.S. (2d) 985 (1989). In Castro , a twelve week Frye hearing was held concerning the admissibility of DNA identification tests and the methods employed by Lifecodes. The court held that DNA forensic testing can produce reliable results and that there are techniques and experiments currently in existence which are capable of producing reliable results which are generally accepted in the scientific community. The court found, however, that Lifecodes did not perform the accepted scientific techniques in analyzing the forensic samples in that particular case. In order to obtain leave from this Court to move for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence, an appellant must make a prima facie showing that a new trial is warranted. State v. Butler , 261 S.C. 355, 200 S.E. (2d) 70 (1973); State v. Jennings , 40 S.C. 553, 18 S.E. 932 (1894). The requirements for a new trial are: (1) the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, (2) the evidence has been discovered since the trial, (3) the evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence, (4) the evidence is material to the issue, and (5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching. Hayden v. State , 278 S.C. 610, 299 S.E. (2d) 854 (1983); State v. Allen , 276 S.C. 412, 279 S.E. (2d) 365 (1981). It is the opinion of this Court that Ford has failed to establish the requisite elements warranting a new trial. We find that the Castro decision does not constitute newly discovered evidence. The Castro court specifically found that reliable results may be produced by DNA forensic testing and that such techniques are generally accepted in the scientific community. Some of the DNA evidence was excluded because of the unreliability of the particular tests performed in that specific case. Therefore, the Castro decision is consistent with the opinion we set forth today and does not affect the reliability of the evidence introduced in this specific case. The defense in this case could have challenged the reliability of the specific tests performed as did the defendant in Castro. Therefore, Ford has failed to show that this evidence could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence. Furthermore, the DNA results were cumulative to other evidence introduced to prove that Ford committed the crime. Testimony was presented by a SLED forensic serologist concerning the ABO blood type and secretor analysis of samples of blood and body fluids. The results indicated that the perpetrator was a group O secretor which matches Ford's blood type. In addition, circumstantial evidence was presented connecting Ford with the crime. When Ford's codefendant took the victim to the police station, he gave a wallet to another young man who had ridden with them. The wallet contained identification bearing Ford's name. Another witness testified that he heard Ford and his codefendant conspiring to commit the crime at the nightclub. Therefore, the DNA results are merely cumulative to other evidence presented and as such if a new trial was had, the result would probably not change. Thus, we conclude that Ford failed to establish the requirements for a new trial and accordingly deny his motion.