Kenneth I. Campbell was convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder and theft, leading to a life sentence. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and a subsequent application for permission to appeal to the state supreme court was denied. Campbell later sought post-conviction relief under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, specifically requesting DNA testing on a bullet from the crime scene. This request was dismissed by the post-conviction court, which Campbell appealed, arguing that the court erred in not ordering the testing. After review, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee upheld the dismissal, affirming the judgment of the lower court. The court noted that Campbell's prior petitions for relief had been denied, including a previous claim regarding jury instructions on premeditation. The case was presided over by Judge J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., with the opinion delivered by Judge Alan E. Glenn, and joined by Judges Gary R. Wade and James Curwood Witt, Jr.
On February 12, 2004, during a hearing regarding a petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner claimed that the bullet recovered from the crime scene was not the one he fired, suggesting it would contain no DNA from the victim. The petitioner's counsel argued that the absence of DNA evidence on the bullet could support the petitioner's case for relief, while the presence of DNA matching the victim would affirm the evidence's validity. The petitioner testified that he encountered an individual with access to the crime scene who claimed to have found the actual bullet in the wall, leading him to believe that the bullet used in his trial was misidentified and possibly linked to a different shooting incident.
The post-conviction court dismissed the petition on February 19, 2004, highlighting the substantial evidence of the petitioner's guilt presented at trial. The court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that DNA analysis of the bullet would yield results favorable to the petitioner’s verdict or sentence. Under the Post-Conviction DNA Analysis Act of 2001, a defendant may petition for DNA analysis of evidence if there is a reasonable probability that such analysis could lead to a different outcome regarding prosecution or conviction, provided the evidence is extant and suitable for analysis, and the application aims to demonstrate innocence without delaying justice. Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-30-304 and 40-30-305 detail the conditions under which courts may grant such petitions.
The court emphasizes that failing to meet any qualifying criteria is detrimental to a legal action, as established in William D. Buford v. State. The petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by not ordering DNA analysis on a bullet presented at trial, claiming it violated his constitutional right to a complete defense. He argues that had he been able to demonstrate the bullet's lack of connection to the case, the verdict could have been more favorable. The petitioner asserts that his trial strategy would have differed with this information. However, the State counters that the petitioner has not shown a necessity for further DNA analysis and that the trial court's denial was appropriate.
The appellate court notes the absence of original trial transcripts, preventing verification of the bullet's introduction or its role in the trial. The petitioner is responsible for ensuring the appellate record is complete to allow meaningful review. His failure to provide the necessary record results in a waiver of the issue. The court must assume the lower court’s ruling is correct in the absence of crucial evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner did not demonstrate a "reasonable probability" that DNA analysis of the bullet would yield results favorable to his case. During the evidentiary hearing, he acknowledged never denying killing the victim, relying instead on an insanity defense. When pressed, he could not articulate how the bullet’s DNA analysis would impact his sanity defense, stating that access to lab reports could have facilitated a different defense strategy, but he lacked the necessary documentation to support this claim.
The petitioner was arrested and claimed he waited seven or eight hours before shooting the victim. He acknowledged that while he confessed to the killing, he suggested that a bullet analysis could potentially support a defense arguing someone else was responsible. Despite his confessions, including a reiteration at a post-conviction hearing, he maintained an insanity defense at trial. The court found no merit in his assertion that DNA analysis of the bullet would have led to a more favorable outcome, as he has never denied killing the victim. The court concluded that the petition was aimed not at proving innocence but at delaying justice. Consequently, the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition was affirmed.
