Reed v. State
541 S.W.3d 759
Tex. Crim. App.2017Background
- Stacey Stites was found sexually assaulted and strangled in Bastrop County in April 1996; semen and sperm were recovered from vaginal and rectal swabs and other biological samples.
- Rodney Reed’s DNA profile matched semen found on Stites; he was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; direct appeal and multiple state and federal post-conviction petitions followed.
- In 2014, with an execution date pending, Reed filed a Chapter 64 motion seeking post-conviction DNA testing (including touch-DNA) of over forty items recovered from the body, the truck, and the scene.
- Experts for Reed opined many items likely contain biological material under the ‘‘exchange principle’’ (touch DNA); State evidence showed many trial exhibits were commingled, unbagged, and handled without gloves, raising contamination/chain-of-custody concerns.
- The trial judge denied testing, finding many items’ integrity compromised, Reed had not shown a reasonable likelihood the items contained testable biological material for certain items, Reed failed to prove by a preponderance that exculpatory results would have led to acquittal, and that the motion was not made to unreasonably delay execution.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: some items satisfied the biological-material threshold, but Reed could not show exculpatory test results would probably have changed the jury’s verdict and the motion was untimely and intended to delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether items satisfy Chapter 64 chain-of-custody (not substituted/tampered) | Items remain available and testing can yield probative results despite handling; experts propose methods to mitigate commingling | Many trial exhibits were unbagged, commingled, and handled without gloves; evidence therefore contaminated | Court: many items (clothing, certain paper/receipt items, braces) lacked sufficient chain-of-custody and were excluded from testing |
| Whether items contain biological material suitable for DNA testing (statutory threshold) | Experts (Paolucci, Lankford) opined exchange principle means many items reasonably likely contain biological material, including touch DNA | State emphasized uncertainty for specific items and limited probative value; paper and some substrates poor candidates | Court: Reed proved existence or reasonable likelihood for a defined subset (e.g., belt pieces, pants, condoms, H.E.B. pen, beer cans, napkin, cigarette lighter, gum, metal box cutter); other items failed threshold |
| Whether presumed exculpatory DNA results would, by preponderance, probably have resulted in acquittal | Exculpatory or redundant third-party profiles across items would corroborate an alternative-suspect theory and undermine State’s timeline/theory | Even assuming exculpatory redundant profiles, items’ tenuous connection to the murder, contamination risk, and exchange principle make such results weak; State’s timeline and semen evidence still strongly tie Reed to assault and murder | Court: Reed failed to show a >50% likelihood that exculpatory results would have led to acquittal; aggregate or single-item exculpation would only “muddy the waters” not produce acquittal |
| Whether the Chapter 64 motion was made to unreasonably delay execution | Reed filed when execution date was set and had prior opportunities to seek testing; experts’ new methods justify late request | State argued timing and Reed’s extensive prior litigation indicate delay motive | Court: Reed did not overcome the delay presumption; motion was untimely and aimed at delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Routier, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (post-conviction DNA testing granted where unknown redundant profile on scene-linked items would corroborate intruder defense)
- Swearingen v. State, 424 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (movant must prove evidence contains biological material; general, conclusory claims insufficient)
- Holberg v. State, 425 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discusses Chapter 64 standard and effect of exculpatory results)
- Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (framework for assessing whether new evidence would have changed verdict)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (standard of review for trial-court fact findings)
- Reed v. Stephens, 739 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2014) (federal habeas proceedings and procedural history relevant to Reed’s litigation history)