A Tangled Web of Justice: The Case of Dominaque Thorpe

Stephen Yarborough’s 2007 murder in Roxboro, North Carolina, left a community reeling. The crime scene was gruesome, the victim brutally stabbed in his own home. Evidence abounded, or so it seemed at the time. A bloody palm print, blood-stained eyeglasses, soiled underwear, and scattered cigarette butts promised a clear path to the killer.

Prosecutors honed in on Dominaque Thorpe, a local man with a history of petty crime and drug use. Despite the presence of substantial physical evidence, DNA testing raised serious doubts about Thorpe’s involvement. None of the genetic material extracted from the bloody palm print, the eyeglasses, or the underwear matched Thorpe’s DNA. Even more damning, when the victim’s rape kit, a crucial piece of evidence given the prosecution’s theory of sexual assault, was finally analyzed with advanced technology 15 years later, it yielded no trace of Thorpe’s DNA.

However, under North Carolina law, this exculpatory evidence might as well not exist. A peculiar legal provision grants judges the power to decide whether post-conviction DNA test results are "favorable" or "unfavorable" to the defense. If a judge deems the results unfavorable, the conviction stands, regardless of the scientific findings. This law, echoed in about 20 other states, places an immense burden on defendants seeking to overturn wrongful convictions based on new DNA evidence.

In Thorpe’s case, despite the complete absence of his DNA in the victim’s rape kit, Superior Court Judge John M. Dunlow declared the lack of DNA "unfavorable." He came to this conclusion after considering all the materials and arguments presented by both sides in the case.

Christine Mumma, an attorney with the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence and a champion of Thorpe’s cause, vehemently disagreed. She argued that the absence of DNA directly contradicted the prosecution’s core theory of a violent oral and anal rape preceding the murder. Mumma expressed her shock and concern at the judge’s ruling, stating that "There was never a question in our minds that it was favorable given the states theory of a violent oral and anal rape as part of this murder, she said. When we got the order, we were shocked and concerned that there was a bigger problem."

Thorpe’s legal options are severely limited by the state law. He cannot appeal the judge’s finding directly. His only recourse is to petition the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling and classify the DNA results as favorable. Should the Supreme Court side with Thorpe, the original judge would be compelled to order a new trial, dismiss the charges, or impose a new sentence.

Thorpe’s plight underscores the numerous hurdles faced by individuals claiming innocence in cases involving backlogged rape kits, even in states that have received federal funding to address the problem. Since 2015, the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) has distributed approximately $350 million to 90 state and local agencies to test the vast backlog of untested or partially tested rape kits that have accumulated across the country for decades.

Some of these agencies, including those in North Carolina, have utilized grant funds to reanalyze partially tested kits using the latest advancements in DNA technology. Previously, these kits were often screened using serology, a technique that detects the presence of bodily fluids such as semen. If the serology results were negative, DNA testing was not performed, especially in the early days of DNA technology when larger amounts of genetic material were needed to create a DNA profile.

Modern technology, however, requires only a few cells from skin or even sweat to generate a DNA profile. North Carolina has retested numerous kits in cold cases, leading to convictions in some instances.

Despite these advancements, individuals claiming wrongful conviction cannot access new DNA testing unless a judge approves. Some states receiving federal grants have automatically tested backlogged kits, even in cases where the suspect had confessed, pleaded guilty, or already had DNA in the national database. However, North Carolina is among at least 10 states where this practice is not followed. Approximately 5% of North Carolina’s backlog, comprising 832 kits, were not tested because someone had already been convicted of the crime.

Thorpe, who has consistently maintained his innocence, falls into this category. He is compelled to reach an agreement with the prosecution or obtain a court order to undergo DNA testing. The Center on Actual Innocence spent $11,500 on the testing in Thorpe’s case.

Thorpe expressed his frustration in an interview from prison, stating that authorities had falsely accused him of a crime he had no knowledge of. Before his 2016 conviction and life sentence, he refused a plea deal that would have allowed him to be released after 15 to 19 years. He explained that he did not take the deal because he was innocent and would not plead guilty to something he did not commit.

The investigation into Yarborough’s murder began in August 2007. Yarborough, a 46-year-old man who worked at a Pizza Hut and Dollar General, was well-regarded in his community. He was known for his generosity and kindness. His body was discovered in his bathtub, bearing 20 stab wounds. Police believed he was killed in the living room and dragged to the bathroom.

Maurice Paylor, a former boyfriend of Yarborough’s, discovered the body and was questioned extensively by investigators. Paylor and Yarborough had engaged in a fight shortly before the murder after Yarborough revealed to Paylor’s new girlfriend that he had previously been in a relationship with Paylor.

Despite the circumstantial evidence against Paylor, investigators could not find any physical evidence linking him to the murder. They also believed Paylor loved Yarborough and that Yarborough provided financial support to Paylor.

DNA evidence revealed the presence of a second suspect, Winston Williams, on one of the cigarette butts found at the crime scene. Williams had lived with Yarborough until June 2007 when he was evicted for allowing drug use in the house. Williams denied being inside the house since his eviction, which, if true, meant the ashtray had not been emptied for over two months.

While the stains on Yarborough’s underwear did not yield enough DNA for a full profile, the partial profile developed did not exclude Williams, although it did exclude Thorpe.

A cellmate of Williams later claimed that Williams expressed great interest in the DNA testing and admitted to being with Yarborough on his last night, arguing with him, and finding him dead the next morning. However, the judge did not allow the cellmate to testify at Thorpe’s trial.

Detective Keith Daye, the lead investigator on the case, believed the murder was committed by a third suspect, Jerome Lamberth, who had also lived with Yarborough. Multiple sources implicated Lamberth in the crime, and clothing found in Yarborough’s home fit Lamberth perfectly. However, Lamberth disappeared shortly after the murder and could not be located despite an extensive search.

Daye and his partner initially questioned Thorpe and two other men, Quentin Royster and Kenneth Snead, but cleared them due to a lack of physical evidence. Daye believed the number of stab wounds indicated a crime of passion, and Thorpe, Royster, and Snead barely knew Yarborough.

All three men were addicted to crack and worked for a local drug dealer. Snead was never a suspect, and Royster had a credible alibi. Daye believed Royster’s innocence was confirmed after Royster’s reaction to a subsequent arrest.

Despite his initial doubts about Thorpe’s involvement, Daye noted that Thorpe was present in the area during the crime scene investigation, riding his moped nearby. However, Thorpe consistently denied entering Yarborough’s house.

Five years after the murder, Detective Ricky Hughes reopened the case after receiving information from Blanche Smith, an informant who claimed to have seen Thorpe holding a bloody shirt the day after the murder. She also claimed that Thorpe admitted to being present when Royster "messed up" Yarborough with an ice pick.

Despite the inconsistency between Smith’s account and the medical examiner’s findings, the investigation was reopened. Prosecutors theorized that Thorpe and Royster killed Yarborough after he stopped paying them for sex. Snead was accused of attempting to cover up for the other two.

At Thorpe’s trial, Smith admitted to receiving over $1,000 from the police department. Two jailhouse informants also testified against Thorpe, claiming he confessed to the murder. The drug dealer, Street, testified that he heard Thorpe and Royster discussing going to Yarborough’s house for money. Street has since recanted his testimony.

The medical examiner noted "shallow, tearing lesions" in the corners of the victim’s mouth but no injuries to his genitals.

After Thorpe’s conviction, his codefendants entered Alford pleas to lesser charges. Mumma began representing Thorpe and Royster after receiving a letter from Royster. She hired an expert who testified that Yarborough’s death occurred much earlier than the prosecution claimed.

Thorpe’s trial attorney admitted that she did not request additional testing of the rape kit evidence and did not present the DNA results that excluded Thorpe.

Assistant District Attorney Hollie McAdams argued that the DNA results did not change anything because Thorpe was convicted of murder, not rape. Mumma argued that the jury would have ruled differently had they known that Thorpe’s DNA was absent while the DNA of two other suspects was present at the scene.

The state Court of Appeals declined to take up the case. If the state Supreme Court rules against Thorpe, his next step would be filing a motion in federal court.

If the Supreme Court rules in his favor, it could prompt changes to the state’s post-conviction DNA law. Mumma argues that the advances in science demand it, stating that "The DNA testing statutes have not kept up with the times. DNA testing can now be conducted when limited skin cells are present." She concludes that in some cases, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is simply not true.