COMMONWEALTH v. WILLIAMS (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant was convicted after a single trial of aggravated rape, rape as a lesser included offense of aggravated rape, and one count of assault with intent to rape involving three different women on two dates.³ The defendant's pro se appeals are based on his argument that deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence linking him to the crimes was improperly collected. We affirm.

Background. There is a long history in these cases with respect to DNA testing and items containing DNA that is familiar to the parties and that we need not repeat here in detail. In essence, the defendant was identified in March, 2003, as the source of DNA on an item, a pair of blue dungaree shorts, seized in connection with violent crimes not at issue here, with respect to which he was indicted in 1999. The Boston Police DNA unit matched the DNA in those shorts to a reference sample, a bloodstain, provided by the defendant. Additionally, the sample on the shorts was entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and a search of that sample was performed.⁴ The CODIS database does not list individual names but instead matches within the system are given code numbers. In this case, the search of CODIS at the State level returned a match to sample M0303402, contained in the “Convicted Offender Index.” Because the DNA on the shorts had already been linked by the Boston Police DNA unit to a reference sample provided by the defendant, no further confirmation was performed.

Subsequently, in July, 2003, semen from a vaginal swab, related to an underlying case here, was found to match the DNA from the shorts. The DNA from that swab also matched the DNA identified by the code number described above. Later, in September, 2003, semen from another vaginal swab, related to another underlying case here, was found to match the DNA from the shorts. The DNA from that swab also matched the DNA identified by the code number.

Whatever shortcomings, if any, there may have been with respect to these procedures originally utilized to identify the defendant as a suspect in these cases, prior to trial, in 2008, the defendant was required to give another DNA sample. That DNA, known to be from the defendant, matched the DNA from both vaginal swabs, and that evidence was put before the jury in the trial in the instant cases. The defendant does not contend before us that there was any error with respect to this 2008 comparison.

Discussion. In the instant postconviction matter, the defendant sought retesting of the dungaree shorts. In his brief before us, he appears to argue that the shorts may have contained not a sample from one individual, but a mixture of DNA. He argues that the shorts have never been tested and the true nature of the DNA profile from them is in question.

The defendant argues that the only evidence linking him to the incidents that led to his convictions is the DNA profile obtained from DNA on the shorts that was utilized for comparison with CODIS in 2003.

That premise, however, is incorrect. As described above, DNA from the defendant himself was taken and tested in 2008, prior to trial here, and it matched that found on the two relevant vaginal swabs.

In light of that, even if there was some error with respect to the DNA found on the shorts, it is irrelevant to these cases and to the defendant's convictions. Put another way, the defendant cannot “demonstrate[e] that the analysis [he seeks] has the potential to result in evidence that is material to the moving party's identification as the perpetrator of the crime[s] in the underlying case[s].” G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (b) (4).

Consequently, there was no error in the judge's denial of the defendant's motion for DNA testing or, to the extent the defendant challenges them on appeal, the judge's denial of the motions for funds to perform testing and for a new trial. The order dated June 28, 2021, is affirmed.

So ordered.

affirmed

FOOTNOTES

3.   One count of aggravated rape against the first victim occurred on April 10, 1990. The other count of aggravated rape and one count of assault with intent to rape occurred on May 7, 1990, and involved two victims who shared an apartment. The cases were tried together.

4.   CODIS is a national computer database containing indexes of known DNA profiles and DNA profiles from casework evidence.