Molina, Wilber Ulises
PD-1079-19
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 20, 2021Background:
- In 2000 a woman was kidnapped and sexually assaulted; biological evidence was collected and sent to private lab Reliagene, which produced DNA profiles and uploaded a profile to CODIS.
- No suspect was identified until 2017, when Molina voluntarily provided a buccal swab; Houston Forensic Science Center analyst Lloyd Halsell generated a profile from that swab and compared it to Reliagene’s computer-generated data.
- Reliagene analysts who produced the original data did not testify; the Reliagene report was included in the appellate record but was not admitted at trial.
- The trial court allowed Halsell to testify about his independent comparison and conclusions but excluded the Reliagene report; Molina was convicted and sentenced to 55 years.
- The legal question on discretionary review was whether Halsell’s testimony—based on another lab’s computer-generated data—violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
Issues:
| Issue | Molina's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting a testifying expert’s DNA‑comparison testimony based on another lab’s computer-generated data violates the Confrontation Clause | Halsell was a surrogate for Reliagene’s non‑testifying analysts; Molina could not probe Reliagene’s procedures or errors (Burch concerns) | Reliagene’s raw computer data are non‑testimonial and Halsell performed an independent, crucial comparison (not merely parroting another analyst) | No Confrontation Clause violation: raw data non‑testimonial and Halsell conducted independent verification and analysis; Reliagene report not admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Burch v. State, 401 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (non‑testifying analyst’s signed lab report was testimonial; admitting surrogate testimony violated Confrontation Clause)
- Paredes v. State, 462 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (computer‑generated DNA data not inherently testimonial; testifying expert who performed the crucial analysis may testify)
- Garrett v. State, 518 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (expert’s comparison of profiles generated in another lab did not violate Confrontation Clause when expert performed independent analysis)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (addressed whether certain forensic statements are testimonial; treated raw data and its use in later analysis in confrontation context)