Background
Ned Pace, Jr., was convicted in 2002 of two counts each of first degree murder, felony murder, and sexual assault, and received life sentences without parole. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, and three prior motions for postconviction relief were unsuccessful.
In 2025, Pace filed another Crim. P. 35(c) motion, citing public allegations of misconduct and anomalies in the DNA work of Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic scientist Yvonne “Missy” Woods. Pace asserted that the alleged problems contaminated DNA evidence used at his trial and sought counsel, an evidentiary hearing, or vacatur of his convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Although the district court accepted that Pace had alleged newly discovered evidence unavailable before trial, the alleged misconduct by Woods was not material to his convictions because Woods had no role in his case.
The record showed that CBI analyst Pamela Schaner identified a DNA match and informed Denver Police Laboratory technician Gergory LaBerge, who independently tested and analyzed the DNA presented at trial. Pace’s appellate assertions that Schaner and LaBerge had similar anomalies, or that misconduct showed fraud throughout Colorado DNA laboratories, were either new claims not presented below or unsupported conclusory allegations. Pace therefore did not show that the new information was material or would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
Key Takeaways
- A newly discovered-evidence claim requires material evidence that would probably lead to an acquittal at retrial.
- Alleged misconduct by a forensic analyst does not support relief where the analyst was not involved in the defendant’s case.
- A court may deny a Crim. P. 35(c) motion without a hearing when the record refutes the claim or the allegations are conclusory.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the reach of postconviction claims based on the Woods investigation. Defendants must connect the alleged forensic misconduct to evidence actually used in their own cases; generalized allegations about laboratory-wide fraud are insufficient.
The ruling also underscores that a Rule 35(c) proceeding is not a vehicle for discovery aimed at finding a potentially viable claim.