[Back to Document View]

                            LexisNexisª Academic

                Copyright 2002 American Lawyer Media, Inc.
                      California Supreme Court Service

                                May 24, 2002

SECTION: PETITIONS RECENTLY FILED

LENGTH: 474 words

HEADLINE: Criminal Law and Procedure;
Evidence

BODY:
   People v. BaylorSupreme Court Case No. S106756Case Below: E029215;
Cal.Ct.App., 4th Dist., Div. 2; 97 Cal.App.4th 504, 02 C.D.O.S. 3038Petition
filed: May 16, 2002Procedure: Petition for review after affirmance of
judgment.Question presented: After a DNA sample was taken from a convicted
sex offender in 1994, and after that conviction was reversed, was the
prosecution foreclosed from using that DNA sample to prove a subsequent
criminal charge?Facts: In 1987 Ronnie Baylor was convicted of rape. He
remained incarcerated until 1996, when his conviction was overturned on a
petition for habeas relief.During his incarceration on that conviction,
Baylor was required, pursuant to former Pen. Code ¤290.2, to provide
biological samples for a DNA data bank. When Baylor's conviction was
reversed, the DNA information obtained from those samples remained in the
data bank.Following Baylor's release from prison, three women were raped.
Sperm samples taken from the victims was matched to Baylor's DNA profile. He
was arrested and charged with rape.Baylor moved to dismiss, arguing that his
initial detention improperly resulted from the use of DNA samples that
should have been expunged from the data bank when his 1987 conviction was
overturned.The motion to dismiss was denied and Baylor was convicted.The
court of appeal affirmed, holding that use of the DNA profile did not
violate his constitutional rights.Although subsequently enacted legislation
authorized the expungement of a DNA profile from the data bank upon reversal
of the underlying conviction, no such legislation was in place either at the
time of Baylor's release from prison or at the time the DNA comparisons in
this case were done. Further, even under the subsequently enacted
legislation, expungement was not automatic, but occurred only upon the order
of the trial court or the request of the affected individual. Here, there
was no such order and Baylor made no such request.Further, the court
observed that there is no constitutional violation where, as here,
investigating officers reasonably relied on the validity of the statute
authorizing them to compare Baylor's on-file DNA profile to the samples
taken from the latest rape victims.Finally, the court rejected as without
merit Baylor's contention that he had a property interest in his DNA profile
which was violated when the profile was not returned to him upon his
release. A DNA profile is not property or a thing, the court said. Rather,
it is information developed by the Department of Justice. There was thus no
obligation to "return" the profile to Baylor upon his release.Counsel for
petitioner Ronnie Baylor: Eric Multhaup, 20 Sunnyside Ave., Ste. A, Mill
Valley, CA 94941, 415-821-6000Counsel for respondent People: Office of the
Attorney General, 300 S. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90013

LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2002