State v. Holt (Kan. 2025): Fact-Based Gatekeeping for Postconviction DNA Testing Under K.S.A. 21-2512(c)

Introduction

In State v. Holt, the Kansas Supreme Court clarifies an important threshold rule for postconviction DNA testing under K.S.A. 21-2512(c). The Court holds that the statute does not require DNA testing merely because a petitioner alleges it may produce exculpatory evidence. Instead, district courts must evaluate whether testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence, and that assessment may involve factual findings (including scientific feasibility and evidentiary integrity) as well as legal conclusions. Applying this framework, the Court affirmed the denial of Stanton Holt’s request for testing after finding the physical evidence had been so mishandled and degraded that any modern testing would be inconclusive and therefore non-exculpatory.

The decision both harmonizes and limits earlier readings of the “possibility” standard in Kansas law: while the threshold remains low, it is not satisfied by bare assertions untethered to the realities of the evidence and the science.

Case Background

In 1994, Stanton Holt was convicted of more than 60 offenses, including two first-degree murders, arising from a series of burglaries in 1993. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 1996. The present case concerns Holt’s postconviction petition for DNA testing of several items associated with the investigation:

Exhibit 43: winter gloves
Exhibit 44: a blue tire iron (consistent with the murder weapon)
Exhibits 69A and 69B: a pair of black shoes
Exhibit 183: Holt’s black jeans with bloodstains
Exhibit 228: cuttings from the jeans
Exhibits 229 and 230: swabs from the right shoe and from the tire iron
Exhibits 231A and 231B: Holt’s known blood stains

After the petition was filed, the parties discovered these exhibits had been stored for years in a district court basement, in unsealed cardboard boxes and plastic grocery sacks. In an evidentiary hearing, a KBI biology casework supervisor described serious issues: commingled storage, moisture exposure (initially from rain and later from storage conditions), mold, rust, handling by multiple unknown persons, lack of control samples, and gaps in the chain of custody—all of which threatened contamination, degradation, and loss of probative value.

Holt argued that testing would show only his DNA (and not any victim DNA) on the items, tending to exculpate him from the two murders. The district court, crediting the KBI testimony, found any test today would be inconclusive and denied the motion. Holt appealed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial. It held that:

K.S.A. 21-2512(c)’s “shall order” language does not compel testing upon a mere allegation that results could be exculpatory. District courts must assess whether testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the wrongful conviction claim, and this assessment may involve factual findings and legal conclusions.
Where substantial competent evidence supports the finding that mishandling, contamination risks, and degradation make any present-day testing scientifically inconclusive, the “may produce exculpatory evidence” requirement is not satisfied.
Because any results would be inconclusive (and thus not exculpatory), the district court correctly denied the petition.

The Court also applied a bifurcated standard of review: it deferred to the district court’s fact findings under the substantial competent evidence standard and reviewed the resulting legal conclusions de novo. It rejected an unpreserved argument by the State that modern DNA testing had been used at the original prosecution.

Statutory Framework

K.S.A. 21-2512 provides a postconviction pathway for DNA testing in certain serious cases. Relevant here:

Subsection (a) allows petitions to test biological material related to the case in the State’s possession that was not previously tested or can be retested with improved techniques.
Subsection (c) mandates that the “court shall order DNA testing” upon determining that testing “may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim” of wrongful conviction or sentence.

Holt’s petition primarily turns on subsection (c): whether the record supports a determination that testing may produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence. The Court emphasized that “may produce” requires more than the petitioner’s assertion; courts can—and sometimes must—take evidence and make factual findings to decide whether the scientific and evidentiary conditions permit meaningful, potentially exculpatory results.

Issues Presented

Does K.S.A. 21-2512(c) require DNA testing upon a petitioner’s mere allegation that testing could be exculpatory?
What is the district court’s role in assessing the “may produce” prong—purely legal or fact-intensive?
Given degradation, contamination risk, missing controls, and chain-of-custody concerns, could modern testing of the specific exhibits produce exculpatory results?
What standard of review applies on appeal when the district court holds an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a 21-2512 petition?

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

State v. Angelo, 316 Kan. 438 (2022):
The Court reaffirmed Angelo’s articulation that a petitioner need not show certainty—“the possibility of generating such evidence will suffice.” Holt harmonizes this by clarifying that the possibility must be assessed by the court; it cannot rest on an untested assertion when the science or the condition of evidence makes exculpatory results implausible or impossible.
State v. Lackey, 295 Kan. 816 (2012):
Lackey reads the statute’s “may produce” standard as low, noting legislative intent that even the mere possibility of exculpatory evidence can justify testing. Holt cabins this by emphasizing that courts are responsible for assessing that possibility, including making factual findings (e.g., on degradation or contamination) where necessary.
State v. Johnson, 299 Kan. 890 (2014):
Johnson explains DNA’s exculpatory significance is typically tied to identity and warns that some DNA results (e.g., third-party DNA on a knife) may not be exculpatory if they do not undercut guilt. Holt relies on this functional approach—exculpatory means tending to prove innocence in context. Here, given compromised evidence, the absence of victim DNA would be meaningless, not exculpatory.
Wimbley v. State, 292 Kan. 796 (2011):
Wimbley illustrates that even where DNA exists, certain testing in isolation “could not produce exculpatory evidence.” Holt applies this logic: testing the glove/tire iron/jeans/shoes now would yield inconclusive results, so it cannot produce exculpatory evidence within the statute’s meaning.
State v. Hernandez, 303 Kan. 609 (2016):
Hernandez defines exculpatory evidence as that which tends to prove a disputed material fact. Holt applies this in evaluating whether any test result here could meaningfully tend to prove Holt’s innocence; the court concludes it could not.
State v. Dooley, 313 Kan. 815 (2021):
Holt adopts Dooley’s bifurcated standard of review for orders entered after evidentiary hearings: factual findings are reviewed for substantial competent evidence; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. This matters because Holt turns on fact findings about the condition of the evidence.
State v. Betts, 316 Kan. 191 (2022):
Confirms unlimited review of statutory interpretation. Holt uses this to frame its legal conclusions about K.S.A. 21-2512(c).
State v. Green, 315 Kan. 178 (2022), and State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 (2020):
Issue preservation: the State’s late-raised assertion about earlier private-lab DNA testing was unpreserved and, in any event, immaterial. Holt demonstrates disciplined adherence to preservation rules in postconviction contexts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court proceeds in three principal steps:

Clarifying the “shall order” command in K.S.A. 21-2512(c): The statute mandates testing when the court determines testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence. Thus, the district court is not a passive conduit; it must evaluate the exculpatory potential. The Court expressly rejects the notion that a bare allegation unlocks mandatory testing.
Identifying and crediting factual findings about evidentiary integrity: The district court found—based on KBI testimony—that storage conditions (unsealed bags, commingling, exposure to water, mold, rust), handling by unknown persons, missing controls, and chain-of-custody uncertainties rendered any contemporary test inconclusive. The Supreme Court holds these findings are supported by substantial competent evidence.
Applying the statute to the facts: Because inconclusive testing cannot be “exculpatory” in any meaningful sense, Holt could not meet subsection (c). Any present-day DNA profile on these items could at most reflect who handled the item at some point, and the absence of a victim’s DNA would say little given the documented degradation and contamination risks. Consequently, the district court correctly concluded that no testing result could exculpate Holt.

In sum, the Court affirms a pragmatic gatekeeping role: district courts must weigh scientific feasibility and evidentiary integrity when deciding whether testing may generate noncumulative, exculpatory evidence.

Impact and Implications

Holt is a pivotal calibration of the Kansas postconviction DNA testing regime:

Reaffirmed but focused “possibility” standard: The low threshold from Lackey and Angelo stands, but petitioners must present a plausible path to exculpatory results, grounded in the condition of the evidence and the capacities of modern testing—not speculation.
Fact-finding authorized (and encouraged) where needed: District courts may hold evidentiary hearings, take expert testimony, and make explicit findings on contamination, degradation, and chain-of-custody. After such a hearing, their findings receive deferential review.
Inconclusive outcomes are not exculpatory: Where mishandling or degradation ensures that any result would be inconclusive, courts should deny testing under subsection (c).
Evidence preservation pressures: The opinion underscores the criticality of proper retention practices. Poor storage can foreclose meaningful testing years later. While Holt does not create sanctions for mishandling, it highlights the need for robust protocols by agencies and courts.
Strategic guidance for litigants: Petitioners should:
- Offer expert support on how specific items can still yield probative results even after years of storage;
- Explain why a particular positive or negative finding would tend to prove innocence in light of the case theory;
- Address contamination and degradation head-on, including available reference samples and controls.
The State, conversely, can marshal evidence of degradation, loss of controls, and chain-of-custody issues to show that testing will be inconclusive.

Key Scientific and Procedural Considerations

Holt illustrates several recurring themes in postconviction DNA litigation:

Chain of custody matters: Unknown handling (especially over decades) can add or remove DNA, making source attribution unreliable.
Storage conditions can be outcome-determinative: Moisture, heat, mold, rust, and commingled storage accelerate DNA degradation and promote cross-contamination.
Controls and reference samples are essential: Without appropriate negative/positive controls and reference profiles, labs cannot confidently interpret or attribute results, further undermining exculpatory value.
Contextual relevance is required: Even a “clean” negative finding (e.g., no victim DNA) can be non-exculpatory if the circumstances (rain exposure, cleaning, elapsed time) make the absence insignificant to guilt or innocence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exculpatory evidence: Information that tends to show a defendant did not commit the crime or supports a claim of lesser culpability. It need not prove innocence outright but must make innocence more plausible on a disputed fact.
Noncumulative evidence: New evidence that adds something materially different from what the jury already heard—rather than merely repeating it.
“May produce” standard (K.S.A. 21-2512(c)): Testing should be ordered when there is a realistic, science-grounded possibility that results will be both new (noncumulative) and exculpatory. It is a low bar, but not satisfied by speculation.
Substantial competent evidence: Evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Appellate courts defer to trial courts on such factual determinations.
Unlimited (de novo) review: Appellate courts independently decide legal issues (like interpreting a statute) without deference to the lower court’s legal view.
Inconclusive DNA testing: Results that cannot reliably attribute a profile to a person or cannot speak meaningfully to what was on the item at the relevant time. In Holt, the potential for contamination and degradation meant any result could not be tied to 1993-94, so it would not aid the innocence claim.
Chain of custody: The documented handling of an item of evidence. Gaps or improper handling can render later scientific results unreliable or meaningless.

Practice Pointers for Courts and Counsel

Courts:
- When the exculpatory potential is contested, hold a targeted evidentiary hearing.
- Make explicit findings on storage, handling, contamination risks, available controls, and reference samples.
- Explain why any possible result would or would not be noncumulative and exculpatory.
Defense counsel:
- Proffer expert affidavits detailing how, despite age and storage, specific items remain testable and probative.
- Tie proposed testing to a theory of innocence that hinges on identity or another disputed material fact.
- Address the meaning of “negative” findings in light of degradation (why absence would still be meaningful).
Prosecutors:
- Document preservation history and any handling post-trial to demonstrate risks of contamination or loss.
- Consult forensic experts on whether reliable interpretation is possible today.
- Argue that testing that cannot alter the inferential landscape (because it would be inconclusive) fails subsection (c).
Agencies and courts:
- Adopt and enforce robust evidence-retention and storage protocols to preserve the possibility of meaningful testing decades later.
- Maintain clear chain-of-custody documentation to support or oppose future testing petitions.

Conclusion

State v. Holt establishes an important guardrail for postconviction DNA testing in Kansas: the “shall order” command of K.S.A. 21-2512(c) is triggered only after the district court determines—based on facts and law—that testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence. Mere allegations are insufficient. Where, as here, improper storage, contamination risks, and chain-of-custody gaps make any modern testing scientifically inconclusive, courts must deny testing because inconclusive results cannot exculpate.

The decision aligns with prior cases endorsing a low threshold for testing, but adds a crucial, practical dimension: the possibility of exculpatory results must be real, not theoretical. Holt will shape future petitions by emphasizing evidentiary integrity, scientific feasibility, and an explicit connection between proposed testing and a disputed fact bearing on innocence. It also implicitly underscores the systemic importance of proper evidence preservation so that the promise of postconviction DNA testing remains viable long after trial.