307 So.3d 249
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- June 15, 2004: Two murders at 1930 Duels St., New Orleans; victims Durelli Watts and Ina Claire Gex; perpetrator stabbed Watts, set house on fire, shot Gex; three neighbors witnessed the shooting.
- Respondent Darrill Henry was indicted, tried (2011) and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder based solely on eyewitness testimony; no forensic evidence at trial tied Henry to the crimes; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Post-conviction DNA testing (ordered under La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.1) later detected male DNA on Watts’s fingernail scrapings and on her wallet; the lab’s testing excluded Henry as a contributor to those male profiles.
- Competing experts testified: FACL analyst (Keel) testified the male DNA under nails likely came from an assailant and excluded Henry; State expert (Montgomery) emphasized degradation, minute quantities, possible secondary/casual transfer, and that the male profiles were not necessarily the assailant’s.
- The trial court vacated Henry’s convictions and ordered a new trial, finding the DNA exclusion met the clear-and-convincing factual-innocence standard of La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3(7); this court granted the State’s writ application but ultimately denied relief, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction DNA results prove by clear and convincing evidence that Henry is factually innocent under La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.3(7) | DNA does not necessarily show the male profile is the assailant’s; the State’s expert disputed that the profiles proved innocence, so vacatur was unwarranted | DNA testing excluded Henry from male profiles on fingernails and wallet; no forensic evidence at trial linked him; combined with problems in eyewitness IDs, exclusion makes it highly probable Henry is innocent | Trial court did not abuse its discretion: the DNA exclusions (and trial weaknesses) met the clear-and-convincing standard; vacatur and a new trial were proper |
| Standard of review/deference to trial-court fact findings on post-conviction claims | Appellate review should overturn if DNA evidence insufficient or trial court misapplied legal standard | Trial court observed witnesses and experts, applied clear-and-convincing standard, and weighed credibility | Appellate court affords great deference to trial-court credibility/weight findings and will not reverse absent no evidentiary support; here evidence supported the trial court’s ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henry, 147 So.3d 1143 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2014) (summary of trial evidence and absence of forensic link)
- State v. Thompson, 93 So.3d 553 (La. 2012) (deference owed to trial court findings based on witness credibility)
- State v. Wells, 45 So.3d 577 (La. 2010) (same)
- State v. Cox, 174 So.3d 131 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (discussion of clear-and-convincing standard under art. 930.3(7))
- State in Interest of A.L.D., 263 So.3d 860 (La. 2019) (clear-and-convincing standard defined as "highly probable")
- State v. Ford, 193 So.3d 1242 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (application of the clear-and-convincing standard)
- Burrell v. State, 184 So.3d 246 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2016) (discussing burden to show factual innocence is highly probable)
- State v. Kenner, 900 So.2d 948 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005) (standard of appellate review for post-conviction relief)