Edward Hill v. the State of Texas
12-20-00154-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2021Background
- Edward Hill was convicted of capital murder for a 1999 convenience‑store robbery and shooting that killed Bo Hinton; this court previously affirmed the conviction.
- Eyewitness testimony placed Hill at the scene; he fled when police approached and discarded a bloody T‑shirt, a latex glove, and cash nearby.
- Hinton’s DNA was found on Hill’s clothing and tennis shoes; blood spatter on Hill’s clothes indicated close‑range shooting. A .22 revolver found near the flight path was admitted at trial but had no fingerprints.
- Post‑conviction Hill sought Chapter 64 DNA testing of the revolver (believed to be the murder weapon) and the latex glove; the State later reported the revolver was misplaced/destroyed and the glove remained with the clerk.
- The trial court denied testing: the revolver was unavailable, and Hill failed to prove by a preponderance that exculpatory results from the glove would have prevented his conviction. Hill appeals raising five issues.
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of DNA testing for the latex glove | Absence of Hinton DNA on the glove would exculpate Hill as the shooter and prevent conviction | Even an exculpatory glove result would not establish innocence (shooter could have worn a different glove; Hill could still be criminally responsible as a party) | Denial affirmed; Hill failed to show by preponderance that exculpatory results would have prevented conviction |
| Trial court failed to consider prior DNA test on revolver when deciding glove testing | Prior positive DNA on revolver is relevant and should have supported testing the glove | Record shows no indication court failed to consider prior testing; Hill points to no specific omission | Overruled; no record support that court ignored prior test |
| Trial court failed to consider identity claim | Hill said identity was at issue in his affidavit and later filings; court should have weighed identity in favor of testing | Court treated identity as an issue and properly limited consideration to evidence available at trial (not post‑trial habeas evidence) | Overruled; court may not rely on post‑trial developments and properly considered identity evidence from trial record |
| Due course of law violated by State’s failure to preserve revolver | Missing/destroyed revolver (previously tested) violated Hill’s rights and bears on glove testing | Hill did not explain how the revolver’s absence is relevant to glove testing; no showing of prejudice or relevance | Overruled; Hill failed to show the revolver’s unavailability made glove testing required |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel in Chapter 64 proceedings | Appointed counsel failed to challenge State’s response, represent Hill at the DNA hearing, and file a notice of appeal | No record showing counsel was deficient; Hill sought to proceed pro se before denial; even if deficient, Hill cannot show prejudice | Overruled; Hill did not prove deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 621 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (sets Chapter 64 standards and scope of evidence courts may consider)
- Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (describes what qualifies as truly exculpatory DNA evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two‑pronged ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Ex parte Baker, 185 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discusses availability of remedies for counsel errors in Chapter 64 context)
- Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (treats ineffective‑assistance claims in Chapter 64 proceedings)