STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NAPOLEAN HARTSFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-767 / 09-0463
Filed October 21, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NAPOLEAN HARTSFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor,
Judge.
Napolean Hartsfield appeals the district court’s dismissal of his request for
DNA testing of evidence from his 2002 conviction for possession with intent to
deliver. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa Wilson, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant
Attorney General, and Michael Walton and Connie Ricklefs, County Attorneys,
for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MAHAN, S.J.
Napolean Hartsfield appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se
motion requesting DNA testing of evidence from his 2002 conviction for
possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver.
He contends the record
indicates the rocks of crack cocaine were wet with saliva, which could be tested
for DNA pursuant to Iowa Code section 81.10 (2009) (allowing DNA profiling after
conviction).
Upon our review, we find no error in the district court’s dismissal of
Hartsfield’s motion for DNA testing. The record contains overwhelming evidence
supporting Hartsfield’s conviction in this case, including testimony from the
arresting officer that Hartsfield admitted at the time of his arrest that the drugs
were his, that he was just getting ready to smoke the crack with his girlfriend in a
motel, and that the rocks of crack cocaine were wet because they had been in
his mouth.1 Iowa Code § 81.10(7)(e)2; see also Iowa Code § 81.10(2)(l). We
further note that although we ultimately agree with the district court’s conclusion,
we make this ruling upon our specific conclusion that the requirement under
section 81.10(7)(e) was not met. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
The State further notes that Hartsfield has previously refused DNA testing out of
“apparent concern” that it would incriminate him in other crimes. See Hartsfield v. Iowa
Dist. Ct., No. 08-0562 (Iowa Ct. App. June 17, 2009) (upholding district court order
finding Hartsfield in contempt of court for not providing oral swab for DNA databanking).
The State argues Hartsfield is now trying to “game” the system by attempting to use
DNA testing to his benefit in order to re-try the instant case with regard to his conviction
for possession with intent to deliver.
2
Under section 81.10, a motion requesting DNA profiling should not be granted unless
the court determines the following factor (as well as several others) are applicable:
e. DNA analysis of the evidence would raise a reasonable probability that
the defendant would not have been convicted if DNA profiling had been
available at the time of the conviction and had been conducted prior to
the conviction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
