People v. Stoeckler

This case presents question as to whether, after defendant had been convicted of murder and aggravated criminal sexual assault, trial court properly denied defendant’s post-conviction motion under section 116-3 seeking Y-STR DNA test of semen stain found on victim’s pants, where said denial was based on trial court’s determination that no experts had indicated that new DNA test would yield different result, and that defendant’s guilt was overwhelming. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that requested Y-STR DNA test had scientific potential to produce new non-cumulative evidence that was materially relevant to defendant’s assertion of actual innocence. Dissent, as well as govt. in its petition for leave to appeal, argued that denial was appropriate because defendant had failed to indicate how Y-STR DNA test would produce more probative result than prior DNA test that did not exclude defendant as possible contributor to semen sample, especially where defendant had not claimed any error on part of forensic scientists who had conducted prior DNA test.