Skinner, Henry Watkins
AP-77,046
| Tex. App. | Jan 27, 2015Background
- Henry W. Skinner was convicted and sentenced to death in 1995 for the 1993 murders of his girlfriend Twila Busby and her sons Elwin and Randy; conviction and sentence were previously affirmed.
- In 2012 the parties agreed to extensive post-conviction DNA testing of ~40 items (bloodstains, hairs, knives, carpeting, clothing); testing included presumptive blood tests, STR, Minifiler, Y-STR, and mtDNA analyses.
- Testing identified Skinner’s nuclear DNA in numerous locations (including 19 previously untested bloodstains and on multiple swabs from the bloody knife) and his mtDNA on one hair from Twila’s hand; many other items matched victims’ profiles.
- A few items produced unknown or mixed profiles (two unidentified profiles on boys’ bedroom carpet and extraneous alleles on a dishtowel), and three hairs visually dissimilar to the victims yielded mtDNA consistent with Twila and maternal relatives (and one hair consistent with Skinner).
- The convicting trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found the post-conviction DNA results were not favorable to Skinner under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.04, and concluded it was reasonably probable Skinner would nevertheless have been convicted if results had been available at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Skinner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court applied correct legal standard under art. 64.04 | Skinner: court misstated/"flipped" article 64.04 by phrasing finding as probability he "would nevertheless have been convicted," imposing too high a burden | State: court’s phrasing was an affirmative restatement, no fundamental legal error; de novo review applies to ultimate question, defer to factfinder on credibility | Court upheld trial court’s approach; no reversible legal error (trial court properly applied art. 64.04) |
| Whether new DNA results are "favorable" under art. 64.04 (i.e., create reasonable probability of acquittal) | Skinner: certain DNA findings (hair mtDNA, absence of victims’ DNA on some prints, lack of Skinner on blanket, extraneous alleles on dishtowel) could support alternative-perpetrator theory and undermine verdict | State: most results inculpatory (Skinner’s DNA on knife and throughout scene); mtDNA non‑specific or inclusive of many maternal relatives; extraneous alleles likely contamination or secondary transfer; cumulative evidence does not create reasonable probability of different outcome | Trial court’s factual finding that results are not favorable affirmed — DNA mostly inculpatory or ambiguous and does not undermine confidence in verdict |
| Proper role of trial court in weighing credibility at art. 64.04 hearing | Skinner: court improperly made credibility determinations rather than viewing evidence as a reasonable juror would | State: trial court as factfinder may resolve credibility and demeanor; appellate review gives deference to such determinations | Court accepted State’s position: no error in trial court resolving credibility; appellate deference applies to credibility-based findings |
| Standard of proof to find "reasonable probability" under art. 64.04 | Skinner: contends article 64.04 requires only a "reasonable probability" (arguably less than preponderance) | State: urges preponderance standard for showing reasonable probability that verdict would have been different; but argues result would be the same under any standard | Court treated the question consistent with precedent (examining entire record for reasonable probability); concluded State met burden to show no reasonable probability of acquittal — adverse finding stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Gutierrez, 337 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (favorable DNA must affirmatively cast doubt on conviction; otherwise it merely muddies the waters)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standards for reviewing Chapter 64 findings; reasonable probability undermining confidence in outcome)
- Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (discussion of reasonable-probability / preponderance interplay in post-conviction DNA context)
- Holberg v. State, 425 S.W.3d 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (deference to trial court on historical facts and credibility; de novo review for other legal questions)
- Whitfield v. State, 430 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (jurisdictional/standard considerations for Chapter 64 appeals)
- Frank v. State, 190 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (application of preponderance and reasonable-probability considerations in Chapter 64 review)
- Johnson v. State, 183 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (trial court may find DNA results not favorable when they do not demonstrate reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Linney v. State, 413 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (cumulative non-prejudicial matters do not create reversible error)
- Kutzner v. State, 75 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (legislative history on scope of DNA statutes; discussion of what constitutes exculpatory DNA)
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factfinder is exclusive judge of witness credibility)