Eric Carson Wynn v. State
06-16-00120-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 21, 2016Background
- Eric Carson Wynn pleaded guilty in 2000 to aggravated sexual assault; DNA from the victim’s vaginal swab was reported as consistent with Wynn.
- Initial DPS lab statistics produced extremely low random-match probabilities tying the sperm fraction to Wynn.
- In 2015 the FBI notified labs of errors in a population database used for DNA statistics; DPS issued statements about limited impact and protocol changes making some statistics more conservative.
- Wynn sought post-conviction DNA relief: recalculation/retesting of the victim’s sample and DNA testing of the child born to the victim, arguing database errors could produce exculpatory results.
- Trial court denied Wynn’s motion; Wynn appealed. The court applied earlier appellate rulings (the law of the case) that Wynn could not meet the Article 64.03 requirement that he prove by a preponderance he would not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA results had been obtained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether recalculation/retesting of the victim’s DNA could warrant post-conviction relief under Art. 64.03 | Wynn: DPS/FBI database errors might change statistics and produce exculpatory results | State: Database corrections had minimal impact and prior appellate rulings already found Wynn couldn’t show he would not have been convicted | Denied — prior holdings control; Wynn failed to show by preponderance that exculpatory results would have prevented conviction |
| Whether testing the child’s DNA is allowable and could exculpate Wynn | Wynn: Child’s DNA testing could show he was not the father, supporting innocence | State: Child is not State-held biological material under Chapter 64 and non-paternity wouldn’t exculpate sexual assault | Denied — child’s DNA not subject to Chapter 64; non-paternity would not negate assault conviction |
| Applicability of Chapter 64’s statutory standard (preponderance of evidence) | Wynn: New statistical issues justify reconsideration under Chapter 64 | State: Chapter 64 requires showing the testing would likely produce results that would have prevented conviction | Denied — Wynn did not meet Chapter 64 preponderance requirement |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars relitigation given changed DNA-statistic protocols | Wynn: New database/protocol issues are materially different facts warranting reconsideration | State: Facts and legal issues are virtually identical to prior appeals; prior rulings bind | Denied — law of the case applies; prior appellate resolutions control |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. State, 488 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2016) (describing Article 64.03’s preponderance requirement for post-conviction DNA testing)
- State v. Swearingen, 478 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine in Chapter 64 appeals)