Julia Wisenberg, Volume 50 Articles Editor
JUDGE KEASLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
In Reed v. State of Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals would grant Rodney Reed’s request for post-conviction DNA testing of evidence from his conviction for the 1996 sexual assault and murder of Stacey Stites. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial judge’s denial of Reed’s request. The Court held that Reed had not established that (1) the DNA testing of over forty pieces of evidence would have resulted in his acquittal; or (2) that his motion was made for a proper purpose and not to cause unreasonable delay.
A jury found Reed guilty of capital murder; he was given the death penalty. Reed filed a direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, alleging insufficient evidence. The Court affirmed his conviction. Reed filed multiple additional appeals—all of which were denied. Reed filed a Chapter 64 motion for DNA testing following a hearing that set his execution date for January 14, 2015. Reed asserted that evidence from his case should be retested using newer and more advanced testing methods.
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.01 states that “[a] convicted person may submit to the convicting court a motion for forensic DNA testing of evidence containing biological material.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.01(a-1) (West Supp. 2014). Evidence may be eligible for retesting if it either (1) was not tested for DNA previously, or (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that newer techniques would provide a more accurate result than previous testing.
The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the items in evidence were subject to a strict chain of custody, such that they have not been tampered with or replaced. Further, Reed could establish that over twenty items of evidence contained material that is suitable for DNA testing. However, the Court held that Reed had not proven by a preponderance of evidence that if the DNA testing had resulted in exculpatory evidence, he would not have been convicted. The Court further affirmed the trial court’s finding that Reed failed to establish that his motion for retesting was not made to delay his execution or the administration of justice. The Court thus concluded that based on a totality of the circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Reed had met his burden under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 64.01.
Thus, the Court held that the trial judge did not err and that Reed’s Chapter 64 motion was properly denied.
Reed v. State of Texas, No. AP-77,054 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2017).