Convicting the Innocent
DNA Exonerations Database

Larry Youngblood

First Name Larry
Last NameYoungblood
Year of Conviction1985
Year of Exoneration2000
Testing inculpated culpritCold Hit
State of ConvictionArizona
Trial, Bench Trial, or Guilty PleaTrial
Type of CrimeRape
Death SentenceNo
Gender of ExonereeMale
Race of exonereeBlack
Type of Innocence Defense
  • Alibi
Description / Quotes from Testimony Concerning Defense

● Defendant’s then-girlfriend testified that she was with him when the crime occurred.

Did the defendant testify at trial?No
Types of evidence at trial
  • Eyewitness
Identity of eyewitness
  • Cross Racial Identification
  • Victim
Lineup Procedures
  • Photo array
  • Showup
Suggestive Procedures

Yes ● Show-up

Quotes from testimony #1

Victim saw and identified defendant coming out of elevator at preliminary hearing. Youngblood was at the time “handcuffed and that the deputy was near him.” Victim nevertheless asked, “Is that him,” and officer asked the victim if he could identify him.

Unreliable Identification?

Yes ● Discrepances in description – hair, scar, limp, which eye had eye patch ● Initially uncertain ● Initial nonidentification

Quotes from testimony #2

When shown photo array, victim was “pretty sure” and identified another man in the array as a possible assailant. “Q: And isn’t it true that you said that it would be either this one or that one? A: Yeah. Q: Okay. And isn’t it true that a lawyer from our office then said, why don’t you put an X by the two that you think it might be; do you remember that? A: Uh-huh” “Q: And there are two X’s on this photograph, aren’t there? And those are the two people that you picked out as the two people that you thought — A: Uh-huh Q: — had raped you? And you didn’t know which one, did you? A: (no verbal response). Q: You have to answer out loud. A: Well, I really think it’s No. 3. . . . Q: Really think it’s No. 3, okay, which would be the top righthand one with the X. But you also told the lawyer that you thought it might be, I guess it would be No. 5, the middle bottom one, didn’t you? A: Uh-huh. I don’t think so any more. He is too young.” Victim described attacker as being blind in his right eye (defendant was blind in his left eye) (However, officer who prepared composite said victim was unable to tell him which eye, though he right eye marked in composite; victim’s mother recalled him saying “I think it was the right eye but I’m not sure.”). Victim described a man with a “short Afro, a little beard, a little mustache,” although in one early description said hair was curly and not an afro. Victim described attacker as having “some grey” hairs; the defendant had none. Defendant had a prominent scar on his forehead that the victim did not describe and he walked with a limp.

Highest level reachedAppeal
Claims Raised During All Appeals and Postconviction
  • Willfull Destruction of Material Evidence
Harmless Error Rulings
  • G
  • HE
Citations to judicial opinions

State v. Youngblood, 734 P.2d 592 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1986)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 1051 (1989)
State v. Youngblood, 790 P.2d 759 (Ariz. App. 1989)
State v. Youngblood, 844 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. 1993)