Law360 (September 3, 2026, 7:29 PM EDT) -- A Colorado appeals court has issued new rules for when and how postconviction relief for DNA testing should be conducted in the state, with the court establishing a three-part test to determine whether a relief petition should be granted.

The three-judge panel held that appellant Billy Joe Page should be allowed to have a hearing to determine whether testing of evidence from a 1992 shooting should be authorized, with Page arguing that testing would yield a different person's DNA that could prove his innocence.

"Applying these standards to the postconviction court's denial of Page's petition, we conclude that Page adequately alleged an entitlement to postconviction DNA testing," Judge Craig R. Welling said in the opinion. "We, therefore, reverse the postconviction court's order denying his petition without a hearing and remand the case for the court to hold a hearing on Page's petition."

Page was convicted of the 1992 nonfatal shooting of Martelle Daniels and RoseAnne Schweissing, two people who were running in the Colorado desert. The pair later told police that they were shot by a man on a red motorcycle and provided a description of the suspect, the opinion said.

Police were able to locate several cartridge casings from the scene, as well as a soda can and a chimichanga wrapper that were tested for fingerprints. The two victims' descriptions were also used to draw a police sketch that was distributed to the public, the opinion said.

Page's mother-in-law contacted police and said Page owned a motorcycle and looked like the person in the police sketches. Police began investigating Page and a police lineup was conducted, though the victims were unable to provide definitive identification that Page was the shooter, the opinion said.

Police arrested Page, and during an interview, officers say Page confessed to shooting Daniels and Schweissing. The purported confession was not recorded, and Page did not sign a document acknowledging the confession, but police claim Page admitted to throwing the gun in a nearby river, the opinion said.

Page was charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of first degree assault and four enhancements for crimes of violence. The victims at a preliminary hearing were again unable to fully conclude that Page was the shooter, but at trial, Daniels and Schweissing said that he was the person who shot them, the opinion said.

A jury found Page guilty on all counts, and a trial court sentenced him to 90 years in prison. Page mounted a successful appeal of his sentence after remand, after which a trial court resentenced him to 80 years in prison, the opinion said.

Colorado passed in 2003 the first postconviction DNA testing statute in the state's history, allowing defendants to request a test of evidence in their cases. The law required those requesting testing to surmount a "preponderance of the evidence" standard before a court was required to order a test of the evidence, the opinion said.

The Colorado legislature amended the postconviction DNA testing statute in 2023, finding that in the intervening 20 years since the law's passage, only three people successfully obtained DNA testing. The amendment "substantially" expanded the circumstances under which a defendant could request DNA testing in a criminal case, the opinion said.

Less than three months after the updated postconviction DNA testing law was updated, Page filed a petition to have evidence in his case tested. Page argued that the soda can and wrapper could be tested, but critically, DNA from the cartridge casings should be reexamined, the opinion said.

Page argued that testing the evidence could lead to a result that an unidentified third party was responsible for the shooting. The new evidence could create reasonable doubt about Page's guilt, particularly if it matched a profile in the Combined DNA Index System, the national DNA database, the opinion said.

The trial court denied Page's petition, finding instead that he is not entitled to the relief and refused to set a hearing to hear his arguments. The Colorado appeals panel said on Thursday that the court was required to hear Page's petition because the new evidence could have an impact on the outcome of his case, the opinion said.

The panel said that under the new rules, a petition can only be denied if the allegations are bare, the record directly refutes a defendant's claim, or if a defendant is not entitled to testing. The opinion said that because Page proved a reasonable possibility the evidence could change his case and that it was adequately alleged, he should be allowed to have his petition heard, the opinion said.

An attorney representing Page and a spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General's Office did not respond to a request for comment.

Appeals Judges Craig R. Welling, Karl L.Schock and Katharine E. Lum sat for the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The state is represented by Philip J. Weiser and Paul Koehler of the Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Page is represented by Jud Lohnes of the Korey Wise Innocence Project.

The case is People v. Page, case number 2026 COA 68, in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

--Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.