Cate v. State
326 S.W.3d 388
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Cate was convicted in 2002 of raping a woman in a Lubbock parking lot, based primarily on the victim's identification with no forensic evidence presented at trial.
- In 2004 Cate moved for DNA testing of hair samples found in the victim's car; testing identified a hair belonging to John Walter Hamilton.
- A hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.04 was held, and the trial court ruled against Cate after considering the test results.
- Cate contends the DNA results, if available at trial, would show a reasonable probability of innocence and thus undermine the conviction.
- The intermediate appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling de novo to determine if DNA results negate reasonable probability of guilt; the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA results yield a reasonable probability of innocence | Cate: DNA excludes appellant as assailant and undermines verdict | State: DNA is inconclusive and does not exclude appellant; testimony identifying Cate remains valid | No reasonable probability of innocence; court affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. State, 128 S.W.3d 786 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004) (de novo review of DNA innocence probability; sufficiency of evidence apart from DNA)
- Johnson v. State, 183 S.W.3d 515 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (ultimate question is legal rather than fact-finding)
- Baggett v. State, 110 S.W.3d 704 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (inconclusive evidence does not prove innocence)
- Booker v. State, 155 S.W.3d 259 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004) (testing not exculpatory; raises doubt but not reasonable probability)
- Eubanks v. State, 113 S.W.3d 562 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003) (casting doubt insufficient to meet reasonable probability standard)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (recognizes limits of DNA in altering verdicts without exclusion evidence)