ROXBORO, N.C. — Dominaque Thorpe is serving a life sentence for the 2007 murder of Stephen Yarborough, despite the emergence of new DNA evidence that excludes him from the crime scene.
Prosecutors claimed Yarborough was sexually assaulted and fatally stabbed in his Roxboro home. The scene was full of physical evidence — a bloody palm print, stains on the victim’s underwear, blood on his eyeglasses, and cigarette butts scattered from an overturned ashtray. Yet, none of the DNA from these items matched Thorpe, who was convicted in 2016, nearly a decade after the killing. Further, when Yarborough’s rape kit was finally retested with modern DNA technology 15 years later, it too failed to match Thorpe or even show any foreign DNA, USA Today reported.
However, under North Carolina law, post-conviction DNA evidence must be deemed “favorable” by a judge to trigger a retrial or sentencing relief — and in Thorpe’s case, Superior Court Judge John M. Dunlow ruled it was not.
“There was never a question in our minds that it was favorable given the state’s theory of a violent oral and anal rape as part of this murder,” said Christine Mumma, Thorpe’s attorney and director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence. “When we got the order, we were shocked and concerned that there was a bigger problem. I still am.”
Thorpe’s defense team has petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court to reverse the trial judge’s determination and formally classify the DNA findings as favorable. If successful, the trial court would be required to enter an order that “serves the interest of justice,” which could include a retrial, dismissal, or resentencing.
Thorpe, who declined a plea deal before trial that would have allowed him to serve 15 to 19 years, has consistently maintained his innocence. “I didn’t do anything,” Thorpe told USA Today in a phone interview from prison. “I would’ve taken it if I’d done it, but I’m not taking a plea for something I didn’t do.”
While the original conviction relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and jailhouse informants, alternative suspects identified during the investigation were never charged. Maurice Paylor, a former boyfriend of Yarborough, had fought with him shortly before the murder. Another man, Winston Williams — who had been kicked out of Yarborough’s house months earlier after reportedly allowing others to smoke crack inside — had his DNA found on one of the cigarette butts at the scene.
A partial DNA profile from the stains on Yarborough’s underwear did not exclude Williams, according to USA Today. A jailhouse informant later claimed that Williams said he’d spent Yarborough’s last night with him. However, the judge barred that informant from testifying during Thorpe’s trial.
Investigators also pursued Jerome Lamberth, another man who had lived with Yarborough. Lamberth vanished shortly after the murder, and witnesses told police they had seen clothing in Yarborough’s home that matched Lamberth’s size. Police suspected him strongly but were never able to locate him, despite putting out alerts under his name, Social Security number, and birth date.
Detectives originally cleared Thorpe and his two co-defendants due to a lack of physical evidence and doubts about motive. However, five years later, a jailhouse informant, Blanche Smith, claimed Thorpe confessed. She received over $1,000 from the Roxboro Police Department and returned from Maryland to testify at trial.
Other key witnesses included two men who had shared jail cells with Thorpe and claimed he confessed. One said he overheard Thorpe say, “I had to kill him. Couldn’t leave no witness behind.” That informant was released from jail just 44 minutes after giving his statement, despite having nine days left on his sentence, USA Today reported.
Following the conviction, Thorpe’s co-defendants accepted Alford pleas to lesser charges. One served four years and was released; the other died by suicide.
Mumma, who now represents both Thorpe and his co-defendant, hired an expert pathologist who testified that the level of decomposition on Yarborough’s body suggested he died 24 to 48 hours before he was found — far earlier than prosecutors claimed. If that timeline is accurate, it undermines the prosecution’s timeline tying Thorpe to the crime.
Adding to the controversy, Thorpe’s trial attorney failed to request additional testing of the rape kit before trial and did not present DNA findings from the underwear or cigarette butts that excluded Thorpe.
Due to Thorpe’s conviction, he was not entitled to further DNA testing unless the prosecution agreed or a court ordered it. The Center on Actual Innocence ultimately paid $11,500 for the tests, according to Mumma.
Prosecutors have argued that the absence of Thorpe’s DNA does not prove he didn’t commit the crime, and that the new results “provide nothing new and take away nothing from what existed at the time of the defendant’s trial,” Assistant District Attorney Hollie McAdams said at a 2023 hearing.
Mumma disagrees. “The DNA testing statutes have not kept up with the times,” she told USA Today. “DNA testing can now be conducted when limited skin cells are present. And in some cases, the old saying ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ is simply not true.”
If the North Carolina Supreme Court rules in Thorpe’s favor, it could not only lead to a new trial but also reshape how the state applies post-conviction DNA laws.
