## IN TH E C OU RTOF C RI MIN A L A PP EA LS O F T E XAS N O . A P –75, 519
R O N A LD JEFF ER Y PR I BL E , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON AP P E L L AN T ’ S AP P E AL F RO M DE NI AL OF M OT I ON F OR P OS T C ONVI CT I ON DNA T ES TI NG M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t , i n w hi c h K ELL ER , P .J ., and P RI CE , W OMACK , J OHNS ON , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . H OL C OM B , J. , c onc ur r e d. O P I N I O N A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of c api t al m ur derand s ent ence d t o death. W e af fi r m ed h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n a p p e a l. P rib le v . S ta te , 175 S. W . 3d 724 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ). A lth o u g h th e o rig in a l D N A tes tin g d e ter m in e d th a t th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e D N A in th e v ic tim ’s m o u th b e lo n g e d to s o m e o n e o th e r t h a n A p p e lla n t w a s 1 in 2 6 b illio n , A p p ell an t fi led a m o ti o n fo r D N A test ing u n d er T ex as C o d e o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re C h a p ter 6 4 , w h ich w a s d e n ied b yth e trial c o u rt. T h e trial c o u rt e n ter e d f in d in g s o f

f a c t,Prible–Pag e 2

i ncl udi ng t hatA ppel l antfai l ed t o s how thati dent i t yw as an i s s ue and he fai l ed t o s how by a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce that h e w o u ld n o t hav e b ee n co n v ict ed if ex cu lpato ry D N A re su lts w e re o b tain e d . A p p e llan t ap p e a ls th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n f

o r p o stc o n v ic tio n D N A te s tin g . See C o d e o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re A rt ic le 6 4 .0 5 . A ppel l antar gues t hatC hapt er64 of the C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e vi ol at es t he due- pr oces s r i ght s of appe l l ant s w ho s eek t o have D N A evi dence fr om a cr i m e s cene t es t ed fort he pr es ence of a thi r d par t y ’ s D N A . A ppel l ants ay s he cont ended a l l al ong t hat s om eone e l s e comm i t t ed the murde r s , s o t he pos s i bi l i t ythatther e i s D N A evi dence fr om a thi r d par t yi s cruci al t o hi s cas e. T he C hapt er64 r equi r ementthatthe ca s e r ai s e an i s s ue of i dent i t yvi ol at es hi s due- pr oces s r i ght s beca us e i tpr event s hi m fr om i ntr oduci ng evi dence t hats om eone e l s e comm i t t ed the cr i m e. A tt he hea r i ng on t he mot i on forD N A t es t i ng, A ppel l antpoi nt ed outthatthe S up rem e C ou rthad recent l yheld that a s t at e cann ot enforce a st atute that pr even t s a defe nd ant i n a cri m i nal tri al from i ntr od ucing ev i den ce t o p rove t hat s om eon e el se c o m m itte d th e o f

f e n s e . See H

olm es v. South C ar ol i na , 547 U . S. 319 ( 2006) . H e ar gued t hat , i n t he s i tuat i on of pos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng, the s t at e ca nnotr es t r i ctthe gr ounds to e x c lu d e tes tin g f

o r th e D N A o f

a th ird p a rtya n d th e re f o re T e x a s la w u n f

a irly di s cr i m i nat es agai ns ta def endantw ho w ant s t o s how thats om eone e l s e comm i t t ed the offe ns e. A ccor di ng t o A ppel l ant , t he i dent i tyi s s ue i s s at i s fi ed bec aus e A ppel l antpl ed not gui l t yand the s t atut e does nots ayt hatthe i dent i t yi s s ue mustpert ai n t o t he D N A . T hePrible–Pag e 3

Ar tic le64 .0 3( a) s tate s th at: 1 (a) A convictingcourt may order forensic DNA te sting under this chapter only if: (1 ) t hec ourt find s th at: (A) theevidenc e: (i) still ex ists and is in a condition making DNA testingpossible; and (ii) has be en subjec ted to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replace d, or altered in any material respec t; and (B ) identity

was or is a

n issue in the case ; and (2 ) t hec onvic te d p e rs on

e sta bli sh e s b y

a prepo nd e ra

nc eof thee vide nc ethat: (A) th e per son would not have be en convic ted if exculpatory results had be en obtained through DNA testing ; and (B ) th e re quest for theproposed DNA testingis not made to unrea sonably delay the execution of sentenc e or administration of justice. St at e r es ponded thati dent i t ym us tbe r ai s ed bythe D N A s i nce thati s w hati s cover ed by C hap t er 64. A nd , i n thi s case, t he is sue of i den t i t yi s not r esol ved bythe D N A becau se A ppel l ants ai d t hathi s D N A w as found i n t he mout h of the vi ct i m due t o a cons ens ual sex u al en co u n ter th eyh ad the n igh t of the m u rde r. A N A L Y S IS U nd er A rt i cl e 64 . 03 , a def end ant i s not ent i t l ed to D N A t est i ng un l ess he fi rs t s how s t hatunal t er ed evi dence i s avai l abl e fort es t i ng; thati dent i t yw as an i s s ue i n t he c a se ; th a t th e re is g re a ter th a n a 5 0 % c h a n c e th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v icte d if D N A t es t i ng pr ovi ded exc ul pat or yr es ul t s ; and thatthe r eques ti s nott o del aythe exec ut i on of the s ent ence . See C o d e o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re A rt icl e 6 4 . 0 3 (a). 1 In th e c a s e re lie d u p o n b yA p p e lla n t, H olm es v. South C ar ol i na , 547 U . S. 319, t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed a s t at e evi dence rul e thatpr ohi bi t ed the admi s s i on of evi dence of thi r d- par t ygui l tata cr i m i nal t r i al i f the s t at e had pr es ent ed for ens i c evi dence thatPrible–Pag e 4

s t r ongl ys uppor t ed a gui l t yver di ct . T he South C ar ol i na appe l l at e courti n H olm es u p h e ld the tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to n o t al low the d ef en d an t t o en ter ev iden ce relati n g to a th ir d par t y , hol di ng t hatw her e ther e i s s t r ong evi dence of an a ppel l ant ’ s gui l t , es peci al l yw hen i ti s s t r ong for ens i c evi dence , evi dence of a thi r d par t y ’ s al l eged gui l tdoes notr ai s e a re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e a s to th e a p p e lla n t’ s o w n in n o c e n c e . I d. at 32 4 . T h e S u p rem e C o u rt d isa g re e d w ith th is re a so n in g a n d sta ted th a t: U ndert hi s rul e, t he tr i al j udge does notfocus on t he pr obat i ve val ue orthe p o ten tial a d v e rse e f

f e c ts o f a d m itt in g th e d e f

e n se e v id e n c e o f

th ird -p a rty g u il t. Instea d , the c ri ti ca l i n q u iryco n ce rns th e stren g th o f th e p rose cu ti o n ’s c a se : If th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c a se is s tro n g e n o u g h , the e v id e n c e o f th ird -p a rty gui l ti s excl uded eve n i f thatevi dence , i f vi ew ed i ndepende nt l y , w oul d have gr eatpr obat i ve val ue and e ven i f i tw oul d notpos e an undue r i s k of h a ra s s m e n t, p re

ju d ic e , o r c o n f

u s io n o f th e is s u e s . F u rth erm o re, as ap p li ed in this ca se, th e S o u th C aro li n a S u p rem e C o u rt ’s rul e s eems t o cal l forl i t t l e, i f any , exami nat i on of the cr edi bi l i t yof the pr os ecut i on’ s w i t nes s es ort he r el i abi l i t yof i t s evi dence . H er e, forexampl e, t he def ens e s t r enuous l ycl ai m ed thatthe pr os ecut i on’ s for ens i c evi dence wa s s o u n r e l i a b l e ( d u e t o mi s h a n d l i n g a n d a d e l i b e r a t e p l o tt o f r a me pet i t i oner ) t hatt he evi dence s houl d nothave e ven bee n admi t t ed. T he Sout h C ar ol i na Supr eme C our tr es ponded thatthes e cha l l enges di d not ent i r el y“evi s cer at e” the for ens i c evi dence and thatthe def ens e cha l l enges w e n t to th e w e ig h t an d n o t to th e a d m iss ib ili tyo f th a t ev id e n c e . Y e t, i n eval uat i ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s for ens i c evi dence and dee m i ng i tt o be “ stro n g ” --a n d th e re b yju stif y in g e x c lu sio n o f

p e tit io n e r’s th ird -p a rtyg u ilt evi dence - - t he Sout h C ar ol i na Supr eme C our tm ade no ment i on of the d e f e n s e c h a lle n g e s to th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s e v id e n c e . I nt erpr et ed i n t hi s w ay , t he rul e appl i ed bythe St at e Supr eme C our tdoes notr at i onal l ys erve the end thatthe G regory rul e and i t s anal ogues i n other ju ri s d ic tio n s w e re d e s ig n e d to p ro m o te , i . e. , t o focus the tr i al on t he ce ntr al i s s ues byexcl udi ng evi dence thathas onl ya veryw eak l ogi cal connec t i on t o t he ce nt r al i s s ues . T he rul e appl i ed i n t hi s cas e appe ar s t o be bas ed on t he fol l ow i ng l ogi c: W her e ( 1) i ti s cl earthatonl yone per s on w as i nvol vedPrible–Pag e 5

i n t he comm i s s i on of a pa r t i cul arcr i m e and ( 2) ther e i s s t r ong evi dence that th e d e f e n d a n t w a s th e p e rp e tra to r, itf o llo w s th a t ev id e n c e o f th ird -p a rty gui l tm us tbe w eak. B utt hi s l ogi c depe nds on an ac cur at e eva l uat i on of the pr os ecut i on’ s pr oof, and the true s t r ength of the pr os ecut i on’ s pr oof ca nnot be as s es s ed w i t houtcons i der i ng chal l enges t o t he r el i abi l i t yof the p ro s e c u tio n ’s e v id e n c e . J u s t b e c a u s e th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s e v id e n c e , if cr edi t ed , w oul d pr ovi de s t r ong s uppor tfora gui l t yver di ct , i tdoes not fol l ow t hatevi dence of thi r d- par t ygui l thas onl ya w eak l ogi cal connec t i on t o t he ce nt r al i s s ues i n t he ca s e. A nd w her e the cr edi bi l i t yof the pr os ecut i on’ s w i t nes s es ort he r el i abi l i t yof i t s evi dence i s notconce ded, the s t r ength of the pr os ecut i on’ s cas e ca nnotbe as s es s ed w i t houtm aki ng the s or tof fa ctual fi ndi ngs t hathave tr adi t i onal l ybeen r es erved forthe tr i erof fac tand thatt he Sout h C ar ol i na court s di d notpurpor tt o m ake i n t hi s cas e. * * * [T]he rul e i s “arbi t r ary ” i n t he s ens e thati tdoes notr at i onal l ys erve the end t hatt he G regory rul e and others i m i l arthi r d- par t ygui l trul es w er e des i gned to f u rth e r. N o r h a s th e S tate id e n tifie d a n yo th e r le g iti m a te e n d th a t th e ru le s e r v e s . I tf

o l l o ws t h a tt h e ru l e a p p l i e d i n th i s c a s e b yth e S t a t e S u p r e me C our tvi ol at es a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o have “ a meani ngful o p p o rt u n ity to p re s e n t a c o m p le te d e f e n s e .” H olm es , 547 U . S. at329- 331 ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed) . T he G regory rul e di s cus s ed i n H olm es s ai d t hatevi dence offe r ed bya def endantas t o t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e byanother per s on i s admi s s i bl e i f i tr ai s es a r eas onabl e i nfer ence orpr es um pt i on as t o t he defe ndant ’ s i nnocenc e and i s l i m i t ed t o fac t s thatar e i ncons i s t entw i t h hi s ow n gui l t , but i ti s notadmi s s i bl e i f i tm er el ycas t s a bar e s us pi ci on upon anotherorr ai s es a conj ectur al inf ere n ce as to the c o m m issi o n o f th e c ri m e b yan o ther. H o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rt det erm i ned thatt he tr i al cour thad i m pr oper l yext ended thi s rul e. T he C our thel d t hat defe ns e evi dence of thi r d- par t ygui l tcannotbe exc l uded bas ed s ol el yon t he s t r ength of t he pr os ecut i on’ s cas e bec aus e t o do s o w oul d denythe def endantthe cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o a meani ngful oppor tuni t yt o pr es enta compl et e def ens e. A ppel l antar gues thatthePrible–Pag e 6

B e c a us eAppe lla

nt h a s n ot alle g e d th at a

c on sti tution a l vi olatio n o c c ur re d at hi s trial, h is 2 is a Herrera -ty

pe claim. See H

errera v. Colli ns , 506 U.S. 390 (1993). r equi r ement s fort es t i ng underC hapt er64 pr es entthe s ame bart o hi s pr es ent at i on of e v id e n c e o f

th ird -p a rtyg u ilt . T he di s t i ngui s hi ng fac t ori n the ca s e bef or e us i s thatthe i s s ue i n H olm es re late s to a def endant ’ s r i ghtt o pr es enta compl et e and meani ngful defe ns e attr i al , i ncl udi ng evi dence of thi r d- par t ygui l t , w her eas thi s cas e i nvol ves C hapt er64 cl ai m s thatar i s e l ong aft ert he def

endanthas pr es ent ed hi s defe ns e evi dence i n a fa i rtr i al . T her e i s no 2
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o pos t - convi ct i on D N A t es t i ng i n or dert o det erm i ne the pr es ence of a t hi r d- par t y ’ s D N A . B eca us e the hol di ng i n H olm es is b a se d o n sta te r u les th a t p ro h ib it t he admi s s i on of thi r d- par t yevi dence ata cr i m i nal tr i al , i tdoes notr el at e t o ourC hapt er 64 m ot i ons forD N A t es t i ng. A ddi t i onal l y , C hapt er64 does notexcl ude al l evi dence of th ird -p a rtyg u ilt . R a th e r, th e sta tu te p ro sc rib e s te stin g if a d d iti o n a l D N A tes tin g w o u ld n o t r e s u lt in e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld h a v e a lte re d th e o u tc o m e o f th e tr ia l. See C o d e o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re A rticle 6 4 .0 3 (a ). If , reg a rd les s o f

th e re su lts, rete stin g w o u ld nots how bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatA ppel l antw oul d nothave be en convi ct ed, t hen ther e i s no r eas on forthe courtt o or derthe D N A t es t i ng. T her e i s not hi ng unr eas onabl e orunj us tw i t h t he w ayC hapt er64 deal s w i t h r eques t s forD N A t es t i ng. E v iden ce o f a an o ther p erso n ’s D N A in ad d it ion to A p p ell an t’ s is no t exc u lpato ryPrible–Pag e 7

See our opinion on direc t appeal for a detailed summary of the e videncepresented at 3 trial. Priblev . S

tate , 175 S.W .3d at 726-29. e v id e n c e in th is c a se d u e to th e a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e p re se n ted a t th e trial. T h u s, e v e n if 3 th e e v id e n c e w a s re tes ted a n d d e ter m in e d to c o n tain a n o th e r p e rso n ’s D N A in a d d iti o n to A ppel l ant ’ s D N A , i tw oul d notes t abl i s h bypr eponder ance of the evi dence thatA ppel l ant w oul d nothave be en convi ct ed i f the j uryhad hea r d t hatD N A fr om a thi r d- par t yw as p re s e n t. I n B e ll v. S ta te , 9 0 S .W .3 d 3 0 1 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), w e c o n sid e re d a c laim sim ilar to A p p e llan t’s in w h ich th e a p p e llan t so u g h t to d e m o n stra te th e p o ss ib ili tyo f h is i n n o c e n c e b yp r o v i n g t h a ts o m e o n e e l s e ’ s D N A w a s a tth e s c e n e o f th e c r i m e . We det erm i ned i n B e llt h a t , wi t h o u tmo r e , th e p r e s e n c e o f a n o t h e rp e r s o n ’ s DNA a tth e c r i me s cene w oul d notcons t i tut e af fi r m at i ve evi dence of the appe l l ant ’ s i nnocenc e and th e re f o re , th e d e n ia l o f

D N A te s tin g d id n o t v io la te th e a p p e lla n t’ s d u e -p ro c e s s ri g h ts . Id . at306. T he s ame i s t rue her e, and the Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n H olm es does not c h a n g e th e o u tc o m e in c a s e s s u c h a s th is . Fi nal l y , w e r ej ectA ppel l ant ’ s ar gum entthatthe A r t i cl e 64. 03( a) ( 1) ( B ) r equi r ement t hati dent i t ybe an i s s ue i n t he ca s e i s s at i s fi ed s i m pl ybeca us e he pl ed notgui l t yand c laim e d th ro u g h o u t th e trial th a t so m e o n e e lse c o m m itt e d th e m u rd e rs. U n d e r A rticle 64. 03( b) , a det erm i nat i on t hati dent i t yw as an i s s ue i n t he ca s e i s notpr ecl uded bas ed so lelyo n a g u iltyo r n o lo c o n ten d e re p lea . U sin g th e sa m e re a so n in g , the iss u e o f id e n tity a s it p e rta in s to C h a p ter 6 4 is n o t ra ise d so lelyb ya p lea o f n o t g u ilty . T h e id e n tityPrible–Pag e 8

r e q u i r e me n ti n Ch a p t e r6 4 r e l a t e s t o th e i s s u e o f i d e n t i t ya s i tp e r t a i n s t o th e DNA evi dence . T her efor e, i f D N A t es t i ng w oul d notdet erm i ne the i dent i t yof the per s on w ho comm i t t ed the off

ens e orw oul d notexcul pat e the ac cus ed, then the r equi r ementof A rt ic le 6 4 .0 3 (a )( 2 )( A ) h a s n o t b e e n m e t. CO NC L US I ON W e agree w i t h the fi nd i ng s of t he tr i al cou rtand ho l d thatA pp el l ant’ s due-process rig h ts a re n o t v io late d b yth e re q u ire m e n ts o f C h a p ter 6 4 . A p p e llan t’s p o in t o f e rro r is ov erruled, and t he d eci si on of the t ri al cou rtt o d enyA pp el l ant’ s m oti on for po st c o n v ic tio n D N A te s tin g is a f f ir m e d . M ey ers , J.

D el i ver ed: February13, 2008 P ub l i sh