M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

 
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 11-14-2017

Case Style:

STATE OF KANSAS v. ROBERT H. LACKEY II

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Case Number: 116,125

Judge: PER CURIAM

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ellen Mitchell, county attorney

Defendant's Attorney:

Gerald E. Wells

Description: Robert H. Lackey II appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for DNA testing after the testing was completed and the uncontested results were unfavorable to Lackey. The testing failed to produce any noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to Lackey's claim, and the district court dismissed the motion as required by statute. See K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-2512(f)(1)(A) (the court "[s]hall dismiss the petition" if the results of DNA testing are unfavorable to the petitioner).

In his brief, Lackey concedes there was no obvious error by the district court. He notes the district court allowed him to choose the lab that conducted the testing, and he concedes that he must live with the unfavorable results. He makes no argument whatsoever that the district court erred by dismissing his petition pursuant to K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-2512(f)(1)(A).

Outcome: We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude the district court adequately addressed the issues and reached the correct conclusion. The lab report issued by Genetic Technologies shows DNA testing results which are unfavorable to Lackey and do not produce any noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to his claim. Some items were retested, and the new test results are consistent with the prior findings. Some items were tested for the first time, and the results either obtained no genetic profile or obtained a partial genetic profile that was rendered unsuitable for both statistical evaluation and inclusionary statements. The district court's dismissal is affirmed under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(2) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48) (the appeal is without merit).

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2017 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.