Timothy Scott Harriman v. State
05-13-01547-CR
| Tex. App. | May 4, 2015Background
- Harriman was convicted of murder and sentenced to 34 years in prison.
- He appealed a trial court denial of his post-conviction DNA-testing motion under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.
- The State retained two pieces of biological evidence; the defense argued testing would show non-ownership of the DNA.
- Evidence at trial included Harriman’s signed statement admitting strangling Vanlandingham; others were present earlier but no other liable person was identified.
- The trial court denied DNA testing, finding identity was not an issue and no showing of innocence would be made if testing were exculpatory.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding DNA testing was not required under Chapter 64.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether identity must be shown to be at issue for testing | Harriman contends identity was at issue. | State argues identity not at issue since Harriman admitted the conduct. | Identity not at issue; testing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (movant bears threshold predicates for DNA testing)
- Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (de novo review when no hearing)
- Rivera v. State, 89 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (exculpatory results must be more than muddying waters)
- Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (presence of another’s DNA alone does not prove movant’s innocence)