Larson v. State, 488 S.W.3d 413

Background

Louanne Larson was convicted of capital murder in 1993; jury assessed life and conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Larson filed a 2002 Article 64.03 motion for post-conviction DNA testing (denied and affirmed). She filed a second Article 64.03 motion in Feb. 2015 seeking DNA testing of: a pair of blood‑spattered blue jeans (Item (1)), sheetrock from the crime scene, a trunk‑lid blood sample, and blood samples of the victims.
Trial court denied the 2015 motion, finding identity was not at issue for some items, that certain items lacked an adequate chain of custody or had been destroyed/contaminated, and that testing would not establish by a preponderance that Larson would not have been convicted.
Larson argued testing—particularly of the inside of the jeans—could show another person (e.g., Tim Rule) wore the jeans and thus exculpate her; she also sought preservation/chain‑of‑custody accounting by the State.
The court applied the Article 64.03 standard in effect when Larson filed (pre‑Sept. 2015): the movant must prove evidence still exists and contains biological material and must prove by a preponderance that exculpatory results would have prevented conviction.
Court affirmed denial: jeans could not be shown to contain biological material under the statute in effect when the motion was filed; sheetrock/trunk/blood samples unavailable, destroyed, or contaminated per trial‑court findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Larson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Larson is entitled to DNA testing of the blue jeans	Testing inside the jeans could reveal another person’s DNA (e.g., Rule), undermining State's circumstantial link to Larson	Jeans must be shown to contain biological material to obtain testing under the statute in effect when motion filed	Denied — Larson failed to prove the jeans contain biological material as required by the pre‑Sept.2015 statute
Proper statutory standard for post‑conviction testing	Larson urges testing under amended, more permissive standards (filed before effective date)	State relies on statute in effect at filing; movant must show biological material exists and preponderance that exculpatory results would prevent conviction	Applied the statute in effect at filing; Larson’s motion governed by pre‑Sept.2015 requirements and so fails as to the jeans
Chain of custody and condition of sheetrock, trunk lid, and victim blood samples	Larson seeks testing of sheetrock and trunk blood and comparison using victims’ blood to establish mismatch/exculpation	State/trial court: items contaminated, destroyed, not preserved, or lack sufficient chain of custody for testing	Denied — trial court findings (handled repeatedly, water damage, destroyed/unavailable samples) were deferred to; testing not permitted
Preclusive effect of prior appellate decision (law of the case)	Larson attempts re‑litigation of DNA claims after statutory changes and prior denial	State invokes law of the case: prior appellate ruling that the jeans existed, chain was sufficient, and testing would not meet burden controls	Court applies law of the case to aspects previously resolved; prior findings binding and bar relitigation here

Key Cases Cited

Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App.) (established prior “reasonable probability” standard later altered by statute)
Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App.) (explaining legislative amendment changing burden to preponderance)
Swearingen v. State, 424 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. Crim. App.) (holding defendant must prove evidence contains biological material under prior statutory language)
Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App.) (describing when DNA results would ‘‘affirmatively cast doubt’’ on conviction)
Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of appellate deference to trial court fact findings)
Rule v. State, 890 S.W.2d 158 (Tex. App. Texarkana) (reciting underlying facts and importance of jeans to circumstantial case)