Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0055
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2016Background
- The Texas Forensic Science Commission (the Commission) investigates alleged negligence or misconduct in forensic laboratories and produces public investigative reports under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.01.
- The Commission received information in a forensic-video case that might be exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(h).
- The Commission asked whether article 39.14(h) requires it to notify prosecutors and/or defendants of such information, whether notifying a prosecutor suffices, and whether broad distribution (e.g., via the Texas District and County Attorney’s Association) is acceptable.
- Article 39.14(h) mandates that "the state" disclose exculpatory, impeachment, or mitigating information in the state’s possession to the defendant.
- The Attorney General analyzed whether the word "state" in article 39.14(h) encompasses the Commission or is properly read to mean the prosecutor representing the State; also noted the Commission is statutorily barred from making findings about guilt or innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article 39.14(h) imposes a duty on the Forensic Science Commission to notify relevant parties of exculpatory/impeachment/mitigating information | Commission contended it might possess such information and therefore might have notification obligations | The State (via AG) argued article 39.14(h) duties fall on the prosecution representing the State, not on non-party agencies like the Commission | Held: A court would likely conclude article 39.14(h) does not impose notification duties on the Commission; duties lie with the prosecutor acting for the State |
| If the Commission notifies the prosecutor, is that sufficient or must it notify defendants directly? | (Assumed) Notification to prosecutor sufficient because prosecutor will assess and disclose | (Assumed) Commission might need to do more if article applied to it | Held: Not reached—unnecessary because article 39.14(h) likely does not apply to the Commission |
| If misconduct affects many jurisdictions, must the Commission notify each prosecutor or may it use association distribution? | (Assumed) Practical alternatives like notifying the Texas District and County Attorney’s Association would be efficient | (Assumed) Each prosecutor may need direct notice if article applied | Held: Not reached—unnecessary because article 39.14(h) likely does not apply to the Commission |
| Whether the prosecutor member of the Commission has special notification duties beyond other members | Concern that the prosecutor-member’s role on the Commission might create broader obligations | The AG’s office: prosecutor-member’s duties under article 39.14 apply only in that member’s capacity as a prosecutor in a specific case | Held: The prosecutor-member has article 39.14 obligations only when acting as a prosecutor in a particular case, not merely because of Commission membership |
Key Cases Cited
- Pena v. State, 226 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007) (describing creation and purpose of the Forensic Science Commission)
- Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (statutory interpretation follows plain language)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Adcock, 412 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. 2013) (primary canon: ascertain legislative intent by text and context)
- Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (U.S. 1868) (illustrating broad historical meanings of the word "state")
- Monsanto Co. v. Cornerstones Mun. Util. Dist., 865 S.W.2d 937 (Tex. 1993) (ordinary meaning of "state" suggests statewide jurisdiction)
- Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez, 461 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2015) (statutes must be construed as a whole)
- Fin. Comm'n of Tex. v. Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2013) (legislative history may be considered when construing statutes)