Coty, Leroy Edward
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 4
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Salvador, a Houston Police Department crime-lab technician, committed professional misconduct by using evidence from one case to support evidence in another (dry labbing).
- TFSC reported broader misconduct during Salvador’s DPS tenure, including poor case-output and numerous corrections, with thousands of cases involved; some evidence could be re-tested.
- DPS retested cases within a 90-day window surrounding the incident; total corrective actions were limited, suggesting low but nonzero error rates.
- Applicant challenged that Salvador’s misconduct and custody of his drug exhibit compromised due process, relying on earlier Hobbs and Turner line of cases granting relief.
- Habeas court granted relief based on Hobbs, but this opinion remands for further factual findings applying the Court’s new standard for falsity and materiality.
- Court holds a shifting-burden approach: applicant may infer falsity under defined predicate facts, but materiality must be proven by the applicant; remand to apply these principles to Applicant’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a presumption of due-process violation from misconduct in another case. | Applicant relies on Hobbs to presume falsity and materiality. | State argues no per se presumption; consider totality of circumstances. | No per se presumption; burden shifts on falsity with predicate facts, materiality still required. |
| What test should govern falsity and materiality when a technician misconduct is involved? | Salvador’s pattern requires broad falsity presumption in all related cases. | Generic two-prong test with emphasis on materiality and case-specificity. | Adopt a predicate-based inference of falsity with shifting burden; materiality must be proven by the applicant. |
| Who bears the burden of proof on falsity and materiality after predicate facts are shown? | State should bear no burden if falsity inferred. | State bears burden to show no misconduct in the case. | State must rebut the inference of falsity; applicant retains burden for materiality. |
| How must materiality be evaluated after a falsity inference is established? | False evidence was material to conviction. | Materiality should be assessed case-by-case with respect to actual impact. | Applicant must prove materiality; even with falsity inference, success requires stronger materiality showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Hobbs, 393 S.W.3d 780 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (presumptive due-process violation where Salvador’s misconduct showed unreliability in tests)
- Ex parte Turner, 394 S.W.3d 513 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (per curiam relief when lab misconduct compromised testing)
- Ex parte Smith, 2013 WL 831359 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (unpublished relief where evidence remained to be retested)
- Ex parte Napper, 322 S.W.3d 202 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (discusses falsity and materiality under false-evidence claims)
- Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (false-evidence claim framework in Tex. habeas)
- Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (importance of not applying per se rules rigidly)