Shane Puckett, Volume 50 Articles Editor
JUDGE HERVEY DELIVERED THE OPINION FOR THE COURT.
The issue in this case was whether post-conviction DNA testing, which revealed the presence of an unknown DNA sample on the murder weapon, created a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have been convicted had these results been available during trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the evidence had been contaminated post-conviction and no such reasonable probability existed.
In Pruett v. State, Pruett was convicted of capital murder in 2002. In 2015, Pruett moved for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. When the murder weapon was initially tested in 2000, there were no unknown DNA samples present. However, when the weapon was re-swabbed in 2015, a DNA profile of an unknown female was obtained. Pruett argued that had these results been available during his trial, he would not have been convicted. The trial court concluded that, although there was an unknown sample found in the 2015 testing, the weapon had been contaminated post-conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed and held that it was not reasonably probable that Pruett would not have been convicted had the testing results been available at trial.
Under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a convicted person may request forensic DNA testing of evidence that was either: (1) not previously subjected to DNA testing; or (2) previously tested, but can be subjected to newer techniques which are more accurate and probative. Once testing occurs, the convicting court must make a finding as to whether it is reasonably probable that the individual would not have been convicted had the results been available during the trial of the offense.
Here, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that it was not reasonably probable that Pruett would not have been convicted had the results been available at trial. The Court reasoned that the murder weapon had been contaminated post-conviction because there were no unknown DNA samples found in the initial pre-trial testing in 2000 and since then, various individuals had handled the weapon without gloves on.
The concurrence noted that since Pruett’s initial trial, he has presented sufficient evidence, through separate post-conviction challenges, which calls into question whether his conviction is reliable. Since Pruett’s other motions were denied on procedural grounds, the concurrence maintained that the Court should have a hearing to address the merits of his claims.
Pruett v. State, No. AP-77,065 (Tex. Apr. 5, 2017).