State of Texas v. Swearingen, Larry Ray
424 S.W.3d 32
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Swearingen was convicted of capital murder in 2000 and sentenced to death; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously affirmed and he filed multiple habeas petitions; the State appeals a trial court grant of Swearingen’s fourth Article 64 DNA testing motion; the court addresses whether biological material exists and whether exculpatory testing would have affected trial; prior 2010 resolution held the movant failed to show biological material or potential impact; amendments in 2011 changed some definitions but did not alter law-of-the-case for several items; this appeal focuses on whether pantyhose ligature, pantyhose pieces, cigarette butts, victim’s clothing, and fingernail scrapings contain biological material and would yield exculpatory results; the court reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Law-of-the-case applicability | Swearingen argues amendments changed law; law-of-the-case no longer binding. | State contends amendments do not change prior dispositive rulings. | Law-of-the-case controls; amendments did not alter key determinations. |
| Biological material requirement | Evidence must contain biological material to qualify for testing. | Amendments broaden definition of biological material; testing should be allowed. | Amendments insufficient to compel testing for ligature, clothing, or cigarette butts; fingernail scrapings exception applies. |
| Fingernail scrapings testing and exculpatory results | Testing could yield exculpatory results excluding donor and change outcome. | Evidence already showed unidentified male DNA; new results unlikely to change conviction. | Swearingen not entitled to broad testing; 51% burden not met for exclusion of donor. |
| Effect of CODIS and exculpatory standard | CODIS hit requirement should lower bar for exculpatory results. | CODIS criteria do not lower standard; other exculpatory thresholds remain. | CODIS requirement alone insufficient to meet exculpatory standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010) (previous DNA testing decision in same case, law-of-the-case context)
- Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Cr. App. 2008) (exculpatory results and DNA testing standards)
- Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Cr. App. 2005) (predecessor guidance on DNA testing burden)
- Blacklock v. State, 235 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. Cr. App. 2007) (biological material requirement laid out)
- Carroll v. State, 101 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Cr. App. 2003) (law-of-the-case and standards for DNA testing)
- Howlett v. State, 994 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Cr. App. 1999) (testing standards and materiality)
- Ware v. State, 736 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Cr. App. 1987) (general framework for appellate doctrine and evidence)