WPCD ,!A7<]"mX53A71]5,s6T$*E"ŗn:e0?mAq&9/ҜzЙ BO4X0t)?O j j6PI6HO2<}n/ĢNJ$>p\դ f>\dTZEDN̒8<وzxl"cUfu.(.ǧ|㹆W tKR7T*W_xdIQ{ b91,5)A/XvkhgOquM$q5:~;b]{ݤd %-5"x p+#`{IUq \477MT6fsjSXҖ ޵T69Wmu0"@U@`cU[' Cl+a#cm2\vƟ֮d_@{_g# %k ^ q 0} UN wS 4W zk    m 0U 4   0LN5 07 0E 0 0 0 0 0p 0CD 0 0^ 02 0 0 0 0d 0) 0@ 0) 0 0 0 0g! 0/" 0" 0#bs$ 00{$ 0<$ 0$ 0>% 0v% 0`Y& 0`& 0`' 0`y' 0`' 089( 0q( 02C) 0u) 0:q* 0Y* 0_+ 0 c+ 0jm, 0- B*[/ D// 0/ D/81 0g1 0652 0k2 0:s3 0^3 0< 4 1eG4 0N4U64U>05U*n5 056 1u8 728 B8 0D8 09 D39 D-9 0K:h: ASp:: 0; 0D-< Aq<=2=AACHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0Jj1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7D(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7  ?Q%2A`Arial?  SP\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7C)2dxd0KS.SampleKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKO<6X9`(Courier NewKSP\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(|G27z$ !.8dd8         0  T  R7z$      2  T  _Priorto2003,thestatuteswerenumberedas4030401to413.In2003,thestatuteswere_recodified_Ԁas  sections4030301to313.Inordertoremainconsistent,weusethe2003statutenumbers.8 @ 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) d(#$  0  (|3!$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3!$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK    R7z$      3  T  _Additionally,wenotethatacourtmayorderDNAanalysisifitfindsthefollowing:    8 `  (1)Areasonableprobabilityexiststhatanalysisoftheevidencewill 2 produceDNAresultswhichwouldhaverenderedthepetitionersverdictor C sentencemorefavorableiftheresultshadbeenavailableattheproceedingleading  tothejudgmentofconviction....u` x` x   Tenn.Code.Ann._ _Ԁ4030305(1)(WenotethatSections2,3and4of_ _Ԁ4030305areidenticaltoSections  G 2,3,and4of 4030304.).However,sincethetrialcourtdidnotconsiderthisstatuteinitsdecision,wewillonly   discussTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030304,whichthetrialcourtconsideredinissuingitsopinionandwhich y   requiresmandatoryDNAtestingifthestatutoryrequirementsaremet.  R7z$      1  T  _DNAAnalysis meanstheprocessthroughwhichdeoxyribonucleicacid(DNA)inahumanbiological  specimenisanalyzedandcomparedwithDNAfromanotherbiologicalspecimenforidentificationpurposes.Tenn. q CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030302. R7z$      4  T  _Asstatedinfootnote1,wehavechangedthestatutenumberstothe2003statutenumbersforconsistency. !.8dd8     _   8ڏXXdd8b]@hh|INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#|#Ԉ #    @  @` August10,2004Session F XڏX #XXڏ&#JESSE_HADDOX_v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXڏX  ? @@ DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  9 @@No.C3610CherylBlackburn,Judge  #  @ @@*AV) ` dE<z` A {  @@TTNo.M200300514CCAR3PCFiledNovember10,2004 t  AV) ` dE<G` A H     In1981,aDavidsonCountyjuryconvictedthePetitioner,Jesse_Haddox_,ofseconddegreemurder, @ andthetrialcourtsentencedhimtolifeinprison.In2002,thePetitionerfiledapostconviction )y petitionrequestingDNA_d W#  1      _ԀtestingpursuanttothePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActof2001.The b trialcourtdeniedthePetitionerspostconvictionpetition,concludingthattheresultsofanytests K oftheremainingDNAevidencewouldnotexoneratethePetitioner.ThePetitionernowappeals, 4 contendingthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghispostconvictionpetition.Afterthoroughly  reviewingtherecordandtheapplicablelaw,weconcludethatthereexistsreversibleerrorinthetrial  courtsjudgment.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtReversed and q Remanded  ]   #Xڏ#XڏX.RobertW._Wedemeyer_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,and 0 NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,joined. i R.ClaiborneRichards,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,andVanessa_Potkin_,NewYork,NewYork,for  ;  theappellant,Jesse_Haddox_. !$! PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;RichardH._Dunavant_,AssistantAttorney ## General;VictorS.Johnson,III,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRogerD.Moore,AssistantDistrict $$ AttorneyGeneralfortheappellee,StateofTennessee. x% %  @@OO& OPINION #XXڏ #XڏX J'"'  I.Facts #XXڏH # 4(#(   XڏX  In1978,aDavidsonCountygrandjuryindictedthePetitioner,Jesse_Haddox_,forthree )n$) counts:burglaryinthefirstdegreeandpetitlarceny;concealingstolenproperty;andmurderinthe *W%* firstdegree.ThePetitionerplednotguiltytoallthecharges,andwastriedonlyforthemurder  charge,whichwassubsequentlyamendedtomurderintheseconddegree.ThePetitionerwasfirst  triedin1979,andthetrialcourtgrantedhimamistrialbecausethejurywasunabletoreacha  verdict.In1981,thePetitionerwasagaintried,andthejuryfoundthePetitionerguiltyofsecond k degreemurderandhewassentencedtolifeimprisonment.Ondirectappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthe T PetitionersconvictionandtheTennesseeSupremeCourtdeniedhisrequestforpermissionto =  appeal.ThePetitionerwasreleasedfromprisononparolein2003. & v   OnOctober28,2002,thePetitionerfiledaprosepostconvictionpetitionrequestingthata  H redbaseballcap,hairfolliclesandfingerprintsfromthecrimescenebesubmittedforDNAanalysis  1  pursuanttothePostConvictionDNAAnalysisAct.SeeTenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030301to313    (2003)._S W#  2      _ԀInthepetition,thePetitionercontendedthatDNAanalysisofsuchmaterialevidencewould   establishhisinnocence.ThePetitioneralsofiledarequestforcounselpursuanttoTennesseeCode   Annotatedsection4030307,whichthetrialcourtdenied.ThetrialcourtdismissedthePetitioners   postconvictionpetition.ItisfromthisorderofthetrialcourtthatthePetitionernowappeals. n    II.Analysis  @     Onappeal,thePetitionercontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdismissedhispetition c forpostconvictionreliefbecauseheisentitledtoDNAtestingaccordingtothePostConviction L DNAAnalysisAct.ThePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActprovides: 5   8  ...[A]personconvictedofandsentencedforthecommissionoffirstdegreemurder,  seconddegreemurder,aggravatedrape,rape,aggravatedsexualbatteryorrapeof  achild,theattemptedcommissionofanyoftheseoffenses,anylesserincluded  offenseoftheseoffenses,or,atthedirectionofthetrialjudge,anyotheroffense, r mayatanytime,fileapetitionrequestingtheforensicDNAanalysisofanyevidence [ thatisinthepossessionorcontroloftheprosecution,lawenforcement,laboratory, D orcourt,andthatisrelatedtotheinvestigationorprosecutionthatresultedinthe -} judgmentofconvictionandthatmaycontainbiologicalevidence.f   Tenn.CodeAnn.4030303.UnderthePostConvictionDNAAnalysisAct,thetrialcourt,  8 afteraffordingtheprosecutiontheopportunitytorespond,mustorderaDNAanalysisifitfinds !!  thefollowing: " !   8   ` (1)Areasonableprobabilityexiststhatthepetitionerwouldnothavebeen $# prosecutedorconvictedifexculpatoryresultshadbeenobtainedthroughDNA u% $ analysis;^&!%   8   ` (2)TheevidenceisstillinexistenceandinsuchaconditionthatDNA G'"&  analysismaybeconducted;0(#'   8   ` (3)TheevidencewasneverpreviouslysubjectedtoDNAanalysisorwasnot   subjectedtotheanalysisthatisnowrequestedwhichcouldresolveanissuenot  resolvedbypreviousanalysis;and   8   ` (4)Theapplicationforanalysisismadeforthepurposeofdemonstrating k innocenceandnottounreasonablydelaytheexecutionofsentenceoradministration T ofjustice.=    <   `     h Tenn.CodeAnn.4030304(2003)._c W#  3      _  _ 8  8`    ` x` x     Thescopeofourreviewislimited,asthepostconvictioncourtisgivenconsiderable    discretionindecidingwhetherthePetitionerisentitledtoreliefunderthePostConvictionDNA   AnalysisAct.SeeShuttlev.State,No.E200300131CCAR3PC,2004WL199826,at*4(Tenn.   _Crim_.App.,atKnoxville,Dec.16,2004),perm.toapp.denied(Tenn.Apr.2,2004).Therefore,this   Courtwillnotreversethepostconvictioncourtunlessitsjudgmentisnotsupportedbysubstantial n  evidence.Statev._Hollingsworth_,647S.W.2d937,938(Tenn.1983);seealso_Ensley_Ԁv.State,No. W  M200201609CCAR3PC,2003WL1868647,at*4(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,Apr.11, @ 2003),noperm.app.filed. )y !    Seconddegreemurderisamongthecrimesforwhichapetitionermayrequest,atanytime, K DNAanalysisofanyevidenceinpossessionoftheprosecutionorlaboratory.Tenn.CodeAnn._ _ 4 4030303.Further,thetrialcourtmustorderDNAanalysisofsuchevidenceonlyifapetitioner  satisfiesallofthestatutoryrequirements.Tenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030304. Theabsenceofanyone  ofthefourstatutoryconditionsresultsinthedismissalofthepetition.Alleyv.State,No.W2004  01204CCAR3_PD_,2004WL1196095,at*2(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,May26,2004),no  perm.app.filed;seealso_Buford_Ԁv.State,No.M200202180CCAR3PC,2003WL1937110,at q *6(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,Apr.24,2003),noperm.app.filed. Z %    ThePetitionerrequestedthatthefollowingbesubmittedforDNAanalysis: aredcapfound ,| atthecrimescene,thehairfollicleliftedtherefrom,andfingerprintsliftedfromthecrimescene. e ThetrialcourtappliedthefactorssetforthinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030304and N foundthattherewasnoevidencethatcouldbesubmittedforDNAanalysisand,evenifsuch  7 evidenceexisted,itwouldnotexoneratethePetitioner.Specifically,thecourtstated: !   b] b b  <*  8  PursuanttothePostConvictionDNAAnalysisAct,thisCourtposedathreepart  inquirytotheState,assetforthabove,todeterminewhethertoorderDNAanalysis.  ЀTenn.CodeAnn. 4030[3]03.f W#  4      AstothefirstquestionofwhetherthePetitioner  wouldhavebeenprosecutedorconvictediftheDNAanalysishadyielded s exculpatoryresults,theStaterespondedasfollows:\   ,    8 ` ThePetitionerwouldhavebeenprosecutedinthiscaseevenif . _ exculpatoryresultshadbeenobtainedfromDNAanalysis.The  H Petitionerwaspositivelyidentifiedbywitnessesasthepersonwho  1  shotandkilledthevictim....Thereforenoreasonableopportunity    existsthatthePetitionerwouldnothavebeenprosecutedorconvicted    basedonthestrengthoftheidentificationtestimony. ` x` x 8  Astothesecondquestionregardingwhethertheevidenceinthiscaseisstillin   existenceandinsuchconditionascouldbetested,theStaterespondedthat:v    X/    8 ` Tothebestoftheundersignedsinformationandbelief,theredhat Hy isstillinthepossessionoftheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourt 1b ClerksOffice.Duetotheageofthiscaseandthefactthatthehairs K collectedfromthehatwerenotintroducedintoevidence,the 4 undersignedhasbeenunabletolocatethemanddoesnotbelieveat  thistimethattheycanbelocated.AstoPetitionersrequestthatthe  latentfingerprintsbesubjectedtotheDNAanalysis,theundersigned  wouldsubmitthatthereisnoreasonableprobabilitythatDNA  materialwasdepositedwiththelatentprintsand...theundersigned  hasbeenunabletolocatethelatentfingerprintsastheywerenot y apparentlyintroducedasevidenceineitherofPetitionerstrials.b` x` x s2  0  AstothethirdquestionofwhethertheevidencewaseversubjectedtoDNAanalysis,the 4e staterespondedinthenegative,noting:N(#(#   8 ` TheevidenceintheunderlyingcasewasnoteversubjectedtoDNA    analysisbecausethetechnologywasnotavailableatthetimeofthe ! ! Petitionerstrials...._No_ԀDNAanalysisofanytypeofevidence "" collectedinthiscasewouldexcludethePetitionerastheperpetrator ## orcastanyreasonabledoubtuponhisidentityassuch.$ $` x` x 6  8  AfterconsiderationoftheStatesresponsetotheaboveinquiry,theCourtfindsthat e&"& noevidenceexiststhatwouldbeamenabletoDNAtesting.Further,evenifsuch N'#' evidencedidinfactexist,theCourtfindsthatthereisnoreasonableprobabilitythat 7(h$( DNAtestingwouldhaveprecludedthePetitionersprosecutionorconviction.First,  )Q%) theonlyevidencethatwouldhavebeenamenabletoDNAanalysiswouldhavebeen  thehairsallegedtohavebeenfoundintheperpetratorsredcap;however,aspointed  outbytheState,ifthesehairswhichwhencomparedtoPetitioners...knownhairs  theresultswereinconclusiveweresubjectedtoDNAanalysisandweredefinitively  foundtobehairsofsomeoneotherthanPetitioner,suchevidencewouldnot s exoneratePetitionerashairsareeasilytransferable.Second,duringtheprosecution \ ofthePetitioner,theStatereliedoneyewitnesstestimonyofseveralwitnesses,which E v weredeemedtobecrediblebythejury.Thesewitnessespositivelyidentifiedthe . _ Petitionerasthepersonwhoshotandkilledthevictim. H      ` 8  Accordinglyandfortheaforementionedreasons,thisCourtherebyDENIESthe    PetitionersRequestforForensicDNAAnalysis.     V9    Wenotethatthereappearstobenodisagreementthatthehairfolliclesandfingerprintsfrom   thesceneareunavailable.Therefore,theonlydeterminationtobemadeiswhethertheredbaseball v  capwornbytheperpetratorandfoundatthecrimesceneshouldbesubmittedforDNAanalysis _ underthePostConvictionDNAAnalysisAct.Onappeal,thePetitionercontendsthatthetrialcourt Hy erredindenyinghisrequestforDNAAnalysisbecausetheredbaseballcapisavailableandcanbe 1b testedforDNA.Further,thePetitionercontendsthatareasonableprobabilityexiststhathewould K nothavebeenprosecutedorconvictedofthiscrimeifexculpatoryresultshadbeenobtainedthrough 4 DNAanalysisoftheredbaseballcap.TheStateassertsthattheredbaseballcapdoesnot fitthe  purposeoftheDNAAnalysisActbecause noanalysisresultswouldhavepreventedthe  prosecutionorconvictionofthepetitioner.TheStateassertsthattheabsenceofthePetitioners  DNAonthebaseballcapwouldnotexcludehimastheperpetratorbecause hecouldhavewornthe  capwithoutleavingtracesofDNA.TheStatefurtherallegesthatthepresenceofsomeother  personsDNAonthebaseballcapwouldmerelyindicatethatsomeotherperson, atsometime,had y comeincontactwiththecap. b   Underthestatute,somephysicalevidencemustbeavailableandinproperconditionto 4e enableDNAanalysis.Tenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030304(2).Further,thestatuterequiresthattheDNA N evidencewasneverpreviouslysubjectedtoanalysisorwasnotsubjectedtotheanalysisthatisnow  7 requested.Tenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030304(3).Inthepresentcase,bothoftheserequirementsare    clearlymet.TheredbaseballcapisavailableandhasnotbeensubjectedtoDNAanalysissincethe ! ! technologywasnotavailableatthetimeofthePetitionerstrial.Further,thefourthstatutory "" requirementismet.ItisapparentthatthePetitionersmotiveisnottodelayjusticeortheexecution ## ofhissentence,sincethePetitionerhasbeenreleasedfromprisononparolebutcontinuestopursue $ $ thisappeal.Therefore,theonlyissuewemustdecideonappealiswhetherareasonableprobability |%!% existsthatthePetitionerwouldnothavebeenprosecutedorconvictedifexculpatoryresultshad e&"& beenobtainedthroughDNAanalysis.SeeTenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030304(1). N'#'   InAlleyv.State,No.W200401204CCAR3_PD_,2004WL1196095,at*9(Tenn._Crim_.  )Q%) App.,atJackson,May26,2004),noperm.app.filed,thisCourtstatedthat [a]reasonable  *:&* probabilityofadifferentresultexistswhentheevidenceatissue,inthiscasepotentiallyfavorable *#'+ DNAresults,underminesconfidenceintheoutcomeoftheprosecution.SeealsoStatev. + (, Workman,111S.W.3d10,18(Tenn._Crim_ԀApp.2002).InAlley,thisCourtrecognizedthat [_t]he_  purposeofthePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActistoestablishtheinnocenceofthepetitionerand  nottocreateconjectureorspeculationthattheactmayhavepossiblybeenperpetratedbyaphantom  defendant.Id.TheCourtwentontoconcludethatiftheallegationisrecentandtheevidence  supportsthepetitionerastheoffender,apriorconfessionmaybeenoughtodenyDNAtesting.In s thepresentcase,thereisnosuchconfession.ThePetitionerhasmaintainedhisinnocencesince \ beingchargedwiththecrimeandcontinuestodoso,evenafterhisreleasefromprisononparole. E v   InShuttlev.State,No.E200300131CCAR3PC,2004WL199826(Tenn._Crim_.App.,at  H Knoxville,Feb.3,2004),noperm.app.filed,thetrialcourtdeniedarequestforDNAtestingfrom  1  apetitionerconvictedoffirstdegreemurderofhisgirlfriend.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthe    requestedevidenceexistedandhadnotbeenpreviouslysubjectedtoDNAtesting,butfurther    determinedthattheresultsofDNAtestingwouldnotbe_dispositive_Ԁbecausethepetitionertestified   attrialthathehadkilledthevictim.Therefore,thetrialcourtconcludedthatthepetitionerhad   failedtoestablishthatareasonableprobabilityexistedthathewouldnothavebeenprosecutedor   convictedifexculpatoryresultswerefoundbasedontheDNAtesting.Onappeal,thisCourt v  reversedthefindingsofthetrialcourt,holdingthatifthebloodevidencefoundmatchedneitherthe _ petitionerorthevictim,thepetitionerwouldestablishareasonableprobabilitythathewouldnot Hy havebeenprosecutedorconvictedofthecrime. 1b     TheevidenceinShuttledifferssomewhatfromtheevidenceinthepresentcaseinthatDNA 4 analysisofbloodevidencecouldhavedefinitivelyexcludedShuttleastheperpetratorinthatcase.  WhileDNAresultsmaynotdefinitivelyexculpatethePetitioner,bothsidesagreethatthered  baseballcapwaswornbytheperpetratorofthemurderandfoundatthecrimescene.Whilethelack  ofthePetitionersDNAonthecapwouldnotconclusivelyexcludehimfrombeingpresentand  committingthecrime,andthepresenceofanotherpersonsDNAwouldnotnecessarilymeanthat  anotherpersonworethecapduringthecommissionofthecrime,thestatutespecificallyrequiresthat y DNAanalysisbeconductedifareasonableprobabilityexiststhatthepetitionerwouldnothave b beenprosecutedorconvictedifexculpatoryresultshadbeenobtainedthroughDNAanalysis.See K| Tenn.CodeAnn._ _Ԁ4030304(1).WhileexculpatoryresultsfromDNAanalysisoftheredcapmay 4e nothaveresultedinareasonableprobabilitythatthePetitionerwouldnothavebeenprosecuted,we N concludethatsuchresultswouldhaveresultedinareasonableprobabilitythatthePetitionerwould  7 nothavebeenconvicted.TheproperanalysisforthetrialcourtundertheDNAAnalysisAct    necessarilyincludesaconsiderationoftheeffectonthejuryofevidenceshowingthatthe ! ! PetitionersDNAwasnotpresentonthebaseballcapthatwaswornbytheperpetratorand "" recoveredatthecrimescene.Inthisregard,thereisatleastareasonableprobabilitythatthe ## PetitionerwouldnothavebeenconvictedifthejurywaspresentedevidencethataDNAanalysis $ $ oftheredbaseballcapwornbytheperpetratorindicatedthatnoDNAfromthePetitionerispresent |%!% inorontheredbaseballcap. e&"&     Further,thisCourthaspreviouslyreasonedthatthepurposeoftheDNAAnalysisActisto 7(h$( correctapastmistake,whichmayhaveoccurredbasedonmistakenidentityorothererror. The  )Q%) Actwascreatedbecauseofthepossibilitythatapersonhasbeenwrongfullyconvictedorsentenced.  *:&* Apersonmaybewronglyconvictedbaseduponmistakenidentityorfalsetestimony.Shuttle,at *#'+ *5(citingBrownv.State,No.M200202427CCAR3PC,2003WL21362197,at*2(Tenn._Crim_. + (, App.,atNashville,June13,2003)(_Tipton_,J.,concurring),perm.toapp.denied(Tenn.Oct.6,  2003)).Inthiscase,thePetitionerdidnotconfesstothecrime;however,thereweretwo  eyewitnessesthatidentifiedhimastheperpetratorandtestifiedagainsthimathistrial.Nonetheless,  thePetitionersfirsttrialendedinamistrialwhenthejurywasunabletoreachaverdict.Inour  view,theterm exculpatoryresultsdoesnotimplythattheresultsofthecontemplatedDNA s analysismustindicatewithcertaintythatthepetitionerisinnocentofthecrimeinquestion.Ifthe \ PetitionersDNAisnotfoundinoronthebaseballcapwornbytheperpetratorofthemurder,such E v isan exculpatoryresultforthejurytoconsider,alongwithalltheotherevidenceinthecase.A . _ properanalysisbythetrialcourtmustincludeconsiderationoftheeffectofthis exculpatoryresult  H onthejury.WeconcludethatthereisareasonableprobabilitythatthePetitionerwouldnothave  1  beenconvictedifexculpatoryresultshadbeenobtainedthroughDNAanalysisoftheredbaseball    cap,andthoseresultshadbeenpresentedtothejury.Undertheuniquefactsofthiscase,thereis    areasonableprobabilitythatexculpatoryresultsfromaDNAanalysisoftheredbaseballcapwould   havecreatedareasonabledoubtinthemindofoneormorejurors.Bylaw,areasonabledoubtin   themindofoneormorejurorswouldhaveprecludedaconviction.Accordingly,wemustconclude   thatthetrialcourterredindenyingthePetitionersrequestforDNAanalysisoftheredbaseballcap. v  ?  III.0 @ 0 @ Conclusion Hy      Inaccordancewiththeforegoingreasoningandauthorities,weconcludethePetitioneris M entitledtotherequestedDNAanalysis.Accordingly,weREVERSEthetrialcourtsjudgment, 6 andREMANDtothetrialcourtforentryofanordergrantingtheDNAanalysisofthered  baseballcapasrequestedbythePetitioner.       `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     ROBERTW._WEDEMEYER_,JUDGE