People v. Robinson
67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 392, 156 Cal. App. 4th 508 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant identifying a suspect by their unique DNA profile describes the person with sufficient particularity to validly commence a prosecution before the expiration of the statute of limitations under California Penal Code § 804(d).
Facts:
- On August 25, 1994, Paul Eugene Robinson, a man unknown to the victim, broke into the bedroom of Deborah L.
- Robinson, wearing gloves and armed with a knife, threatened and sexually assaulted Deborah L. in multiple ways.
- During the assault, Robinson ejaculated, leaving his semen on the victim's body.
- Police collected a vaginal swab from the victim as part of a rape kit, which tested positive for semen.
- At some point prior to September 2000, a sample of Robinson's blood was collected and his DNA profile was entered into the California Department of Justice's convicted offender databank.
- In August 2000, a crime lab developed a 13-locus DNA profile of the assailant from the semen found on the 1994 vaginal swab.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 21, 2000, four days before the six-year statute of limitations expired, the Sacramento County District Attorney filed a felony complaint against 'John Doe,' identifying him by a 13-locus DNA profile.
- On August 22, 2000, a magistrate issued an arrest warrant incorporating the DNA profile.
- On September 15, 2000, after the DOJ crime lab matched the crime scene DNA to Paul Eugene Robinson's profile in the state databank, the warrant was executed and Robinson was arrested.
- A first amended complaint was filed naming Robinson as the defendant.
- In the trial court, Robinson moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the John Doe/DNA warrant was not specific enough to toll the statute of limitations.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
- A jury convicted Robinson on five counts, and he was sentenced.
- Robinson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of California (respondent is The People).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 'John Doe' arrest warrant that identifies the suspect solely by his unique 13-locus DNA profile describe the person with sufficient particularity to satisfy the statute of limitations for commencing a criminal prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Blease, Acting P.J.
Yes, an arrest warrant that identifies the person to be arrested by their DNA profile satisfies the statutory and constitutional particularity requirements. California Penal Code § 804(d) requires that a warrant describe a defendant with the same particularity as a complaint, and while a fictitious name alone is insufficient, the constitutional test is whether the warrant describes the person with 'reasonable particularity' or 'reasonable certainty.' A DNA profile is arguably the most discrete, exclusive, and accurate means of personal identification available, far exceeding the precision of a physical description or even a name. The court rejected the argument that an officer cannot execute such a warrant visually, reasoning that extrinsic evidence is always necessary to locate a suspect and execute any warrant, whether based on a name or a DNA profile. Therefore, using a DNA profile on a warrant is a valid method to commence prosecution within the statutory time limit.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its validation of using genetic information as a legally sufficient identifier to satisfy constitutional particularity requirements for arrest warrants. It provides a crucial tool for prosecutors in 'cold cases' where DNA evidence exists but the suspect's identity is unknown. By allowing the statute of limitations to be satisfied with a 'John Doe/DNA' warrant, the ruling ensures that perpetrators of serious crimes cannot evade justice simply because their name is not discovered until after the statutory period has expired. This precedent solidifies the role of modern forensic science in the foundational stages of criminal prosecution.
