Can defendants obtain postconviction DNA testing after tactical trial decisions? Johnson v. State Explained

In Johnson v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can obtain postconviction DNA testing when defense counsel made a tactical decision not to pursue such testing at trial. The court’s ruling provides important guidance on the limitations of Utah’s postconviction DNA testing statute.

Background and Facts
Terry Johnson was convicted of murder following a jury trial that included prosecution expert testimony about DNA testing. On direct appeal, the court determined that defense counsel was not ineffective for choosing not to call a DNA expert, finding this was a sound “strategic decision” after consulting with a DNA expert. Johnson subsequently filed multiple petitions for postconviction relief and DNA testing, all of which were dismissed.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-9-301(4) prohibited Johnson from obtaining postconviction DNA testing when his trial counsel had made a tactical decision not to request such testing. The statute bars DNA testing “in cases in which DNA testing was available at the time of the trial and the person did not request DNA testing or present DNA evidence for tactical reasons.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied correctness review to the dismissal of the postconviction petition. The court reaffirmed its previous finding that defense counsel’s choice not to pursue DNA testing was a “reasonable strategic choice” that constituted a “tactical reason” under the statute. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that no reasonable tactical decision could exist for avoiding DNA evidence, noting that counsel might justifiably be concerned that DNA evidence would inculpate rather than exculpate the defendant.

Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that Utah’s postconviction DNA testing statute contains meaningful limitations. Defense attorneys must carefully consider and document their strategic decisions regarding DNA testing at trial, as these choices may permanently foreclose future postconviction testing opportunities. The ruling also demonstrates that courts will not second-guess reasonable tactical decisions simply because a defendant later disagrees with the strategy employed.