Esp a rz a v . S ta te , 2 6 4 S .W .3 d 8 2 , 8 7 -8 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [ 1 s t D is t.] 2 0 0 7 ). 1 N



## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1616- 07
ED W A R D ESP A R Z A , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS
ON APP ELLANT ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE FI RST CO URT O F AP PEALS

HA RRI S CO UNTY K EASLE R , J . , d eli v er ed th e u n a n im o u s o p inion o f the C o u rt. O P I N I O N T he courtof appe al s uphel d t he t r i al j udge’ s r efus al t o gr antE dw ar d E s par za’ s m ot i on forD N A t es t i ng. T he courthel d t hatt est ing show i ng t he pr es ence of D N A notbel ongi ng t o E s p a r z a wo u l d n o tp r o v e h i s i n n o c e n c e b e c a u s e ( 1 ) t h e v i c t i m r e p o r t e d h a v i n g s e x t wo day s befor e the att ack, and (2) t her e w as overw hel m i ng ey e- w i t nes s t es t i m onyes t abl i s hi ng E s par za’ s g u il t. W e reve r s e the courtof appe al s ’ s j udgm entand r emand t hi s cas e for 1E S P A R Z A —2

p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . Backg r ound T he vi ct i m , G uadal upe R i os , and her aunt , H erm i na C antu L ucer o, dr ove fr om B r y an, T exas , t hei rhom et ow n, t o H ous t on, T exas on t he eve ni ng of J anuary 1, 1994. T he tw o m et R ios’s sist er, M aryC an tu, and C an tu’s b o y frien d at Z az T ij u an a C lub
. R ios a n d L u ce ro
arr i ved att he cl ub betw een 9: 30 and 10: 00 p. m . , and Espar za a s ked Lucer o t o dance about
a h a lf h o u r la ter . L u c e ro a n d E sp a rz a sp e n t th e n ig h t talk in g a n d d a n c in g . E sp a rz a to ld L ucer o t hathe had j us ttur ned fort yand w or ked forthe “Shel l C om pany . ” H e al s o gave L u c e ro h is b u sin e ss c a rd
. L u c e ro in tro d u c e d E sp a rz a to R io s, b u t R io s o n lyg lan c e d a t h im b ec au se sh e w as lo o k ing thro u g h the c row d fo r a f ri en d w h o w as su p p o sed to m ee t her. R i os ’ s fr i end neve rs h o w ed u p, and R i os w as ups etw hen s he and Lucer o l eftthe cl ub b e t we e n 1 : 3 0 a n d 2 : 0 0 a . m. E s par za w al ked R i os and L ucer o t o R i os ’ s car . R i os ’ s car , how ever , w as gone; i thad been t ow ed aw ay . T he thr ee r etur ned t o t he cl ub, and R i os found C antu and t ol d herw hat h a p p e n e d . C a n tu a n d h e r b o y f rie n d o f f e re d to d riv e R io s a n d L u c e ro to th e im p o u n d lo t. E sparza ext end ed the sam e off er, and L ucero accep t ed E sparza’ s offer. R i os j oined t hem so th a t L u c e ro w o u ld n o t b e a lo n e w ith E sp a rz a . E sp a rz a f o llo w e d C a n tu a n d h e r b o y f rie n d to th e im p o u n d lo t. R io s a n d L u c e ro d id n o t h a v e e n o u g h m o n e y to g e t R io s’s c a r f ro m th e lo t, and bec aus e R i os had t o be at w or k at6: 00 a. m . , both E s par za a nd C antu’ s boy fr i end off er ed t o dr i ve R i os and L ucer o back t o B r y an. L ucer o t hought t hatE s par za w as ni ce a nd not ed thatE S P A R Z A —3

h e b e h a v e d lik e a p e rf

e c t g e n tlem a n a ll ev e n in g , so sh e a c c e p ted E sp a rz a ’s o f f e r. R io s d id notpaym uch att ent i on t o E s par za be caus e s he w as i r r i t at ed and ups etthatherfr i end di d not
m e e t h e r. L ucer o s ati n t he fr ont pas s enger ’ s s eat of E s par za’ s l i ght bl ue, four
- door car . R i os g o t in th e b a c k se a t b e h in d L u c e ro , p u t h e r h e a d d o w n , an d w e n t to sle e p . T h e yh e a d e d to B ry an o n H i gh w ay29 0. E sp a rz a sto p p e d ata gas st at i on and bo ug ht a C ok e. A ft er this , w hi l e dr i vi ng agai n on H i ghw ay290, E s par za be came “i ndeci s i ve” a boutt he di r ect i on t hat h e wa s g o i n g ; h e c u ta c r o s s t h e r o a d s e v e r a l t i me s , c h a n g i n g d i r e c t i o n s . Lu c e r o b e c a me “s car ed” and “ver y nervous . ” E s par za pul l ed off t he r oad t o go t o t he bathr oom . W hen he gotoutof the ca r , L ucer o w oke up R i os and t ol d hert hats he w as s car ed. L ucer o expl ai ned t hat E s p a r z a was “ a c t i n g wei r d ” a n d h a d b e e n “ g o i n g a r o u n d i n c i r c l e s . ” Ri o s , who h ad been i n a dee p s l eep, beca m e s car ed and tr i ed t o di s cern w her e theyw er e. W hen Espar za got back i n t he car , he di r ect ed L ucer o t o “come cl os er . ” Lucer o s ai d,

“ n o . ” Es p a r z a g r a b b e d h e r n e c k , f o r c e d h e r t o wa r d h i m, a n d t r i e d t o k i s s h e r . S h e t o l d h i m, “no, ” and Espa r za r es ponded bycal l i ng hera “bi t ch. ” Espar za s t art ed dr i vi ng, cutacr os s t he
r oad aga i n, pul l ed off t o t he si de of t he roa d i n a dark ar ea i n the “mi ddl e of now her e, ” and
s t opped. H e or der ed R i os and Lucer o t o getoutof the ca r . W hen theyr efus ed, E s par za got outof the ca r , gr abbed Lucer o and dr agged he r t o t he fr ontof the ca r . H e s ai d, “s t ayher e, bi t ch, orel s e” a nd t hr eat ened t o ki l l her
. H e t hen pul l ed R i os out of t he ca rbyherhai rand dr agged he rt o t he fr ontof the ca r . H e i ns t ruct ed t he w om en t o geton t hei rknees and s ai d,E S P A R Z A —4

“I ’ m goi ng t o t eac h y ou w hatI do w i t h bi t ches
. ” H e gra bbed bot h of them bythe hai rand
s l amm ed thei rheads t ogethe r. H e cont i nued t o do t hi s w hi l e s ay i ng “fuc k y ou, fuck y ou”
overand over
. A ftert hr eat eni ng t o ki l l them, he w al ked bac k t o t he ca rand opene d the t runk. L ucer o t ol d R i os t hatt heyneede d t o run ortheyw oul d di e. R ios fro ze. E s par za
o v e r h e a r d L u c e r o a n d t h r e a t e n e d t o k i l l t h e m a g a i n a s h e wa l k e d t o t h e f r o n to f t h e c a r . He g ra b b e d R io s a n d L u c e ro a n d o rd e re d th e m in to th e b a c k se a t o f th e c a r. L u c e ro e n ter e d f irst, t hen opene d t he door on t he ot her s i de of t he ca rand t ook off runni ng. E s par za gr abbed Ri os byt he hai r and t ol d her not t o m ove. L ucer o cont i nued t o run and l ook forhel p, butno one t r avel i ng on t he hi ghw ays t opped t o hel p. E s par za gotback i nt o t he dr i ver ’ s s eatand or der ed R i os t o cl i m b i nt o the fr ont pas s enger ’ s s eat . A ft erR i os pl ace d herhead on t he arm r es t at E s par za’ s i ns i s t ence , E s par za p lace d h is a rm o v e r R ios’s h ea d
. E sp arz a d rov e b ac k o n to H igh w ay2 9 0 , h ea d ing tow ard H ous t on. W hi l e herhead w as dow n, R i os no ti ce d a zi pped gun ca s e and f i r ew or ks on t he fl oorboar d i n fr ont of her
. T he s i ght of t he gun cas e fr i ght ened R i os . E sp arz a exi t ed H i ghw ay290. H e t ol d R i os t hathe w as notgoi ng t o hur t her and t hat he w as t aki ng herback to to w n so th a t h e c o u ld d ro p h e r o f f so m e w h e re . In ste a d , E sp a rz a p u lled o v e r, re c lin e d h is
se a t, un z ip p e d h is p a n ts, w ith d re w h is p e n is, a n d to ld R io s th a t “h e k n e w th a t [ sh e ] d id th is
w i t h herhus band. ” H e t hen pushed her head t ow ar d hi s peni s and for ced i ti nt o herm out h. R io s g a g g e d , an d E sp a rz a th re a ten e d to h u rt h e r if sh e th re w u p o n h im
. H e to ld h e r to ro ll
overon hers t om ach a nd pul l herpant s dow n. W hen R i os compl i ed, E s par za cl i m bed on t opE S P A R Z A —5

of her fr om behi nd and i ns er t ed hi s peni s i nt o her vagi na. W hen Espar za f i ni s hed, “he pul l ed
o u t” a n d a sk e d R io s if

sh e h a d “ c o m e w h e n h e c a m e .” E sp a rz a th e n so a k e d a b a n d a n a w ith C oke and t ol d R i os t o cl ean he r s el f “w el l
. ” R i os cl eane d her s el f butdi d notdo itw el l , as E s par za ha d di r ect ed. E s par za t hen gave her change s o t hat s he coul d cal l s om ebodyw hen h e dro p p ed h er of

f. H e t o ld her she co u ld call an y o n e bu t the po li ce . H e too k h er d ri v er’s l i cens e, s tudi ed heraddr es s , and w arned hert hathe knew w her e t o fi nd her i f s he cal l ed the pol i ce. E s par za dr opped R i os off on a corner i n H ous t on and dr ove aw ay . R i os w al ked about a bl oc k a n d a h a l f u n t i l s h e f o u n d a c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e . Sh e c a l l e d 9 1 1
. W h en t he pol i ce arrived , sh e re p o rt ed w h at ha p p en ed an d w en t t o the h o sp it al. A rou n d this t im e, L u ce ro fi nal l yfound s om eone t o cal l t he pol i ce. Shor t l yaft ert he p o li ce a r r i ved, s he l earned that R i os w as i n t he hos pi t al
. She t ol d pol i ce t hat t hei r att acke r w as named “E d, ” a na m e thats he
r emem ber ed bec aus e one of herbr ot her ’ s has the same name. She al s o gave the pol i ce the bus i nes s car d t hatE s par za ga ve heratthe cl ub. A tt he hos pi t al , a nur s e compi l ed a r ape ki t , w hi ch i ncl uded biolo g ical s peci m ens coll ect ed from R i os’s vag i na an d n ai l s. R i os coul d not i dent i fy E s par za befor e or at t r i al
. She t es t i fi ed, how ever , t hat , bas ed
o n w h a t L u c e ro a n d C a n tu to ld h e r, s h e b e lie v e d th a t E s p a rz a w a s h e r a tta c k e r. L u c e ro id e n tifie d E sp a rz a in a p h o to lin e u p a b o u t a m o n th a f ter th e o f f e n se a n d a g a in att r i al
. A t t he phot o l i ne up, L ucer o hes i t at ed w hen i dent i fy i ng E s par za beca us e w hen s heE S P A R Z A —6

m et him , h e h ad fa cia l h a ir , w h ich h e d id n o t hav e in th e p h o tog rap h
. A t tri al, L u ce ro t es t i fi ed thats he had no doubt s t hatE s par za w as t he m an w ho s he metatt he cl ub. She s t at ed that sh e c o u ld n ev er f

o rge t th e f

ac e o f th e m an that slam m ed h er a n d R ios’s h ea d s tog ethe r. C a n tu tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s p o sitiv e th a t E sp a rz a w a s th e m a n th a t lef t th e c lu b w ith L u c e ro . S h e “ lo o k e d a t h im f o r a lo n g p e ri o d o f

tim e w h e n [ th e y ] w e re in th e c lu b .” T he bus i nes s car d t hatE s par za ga ve t o L ucer o at t he cl ub w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence
. T he card iden t i fi ed E sparza as a cer t i fi ed p aral egal w ho w orked f or R ub en F
. V al des, E s p a rz a ’s tr ia l a tto rn e y , in H o u s to n . E s par z a p r e s e n t e d a n a l i b i d e f e n s e . Acc o r d i n g t o f a mi l y me mbe r s a n d an acqu ai ntance, E sparza w as w i t h them atan im prom ptu fam i l ygathe ri ng w hen t he o ffen se
o c c u rr e d
. E s par za’ s w i fe, E m i l i a Levi a, t es t i fi ed thats he and Espa r za w entt o hers i s t erand br ot her
- i n- l aw ’s h o u se around 8: 00 p. m . on J anuary1s t . A l t hough t heyhad pl ans t o go danci ng, t heydeci ded t o s t ayathers i s t er ’ s hous e bec aus e s he fe l ts i ck. T hey had di nnerand dr i nks and left th e hous e s om et i m e betw een 2: 15 and 2: 45 a. m . E m i l i a s t at ed thather h u sb a n d w o rk e d f

o r a tem p o ra rye m p lo ym e n t ag e n c y . W h e n a sk e d if E sp a rz a h a d a jo b w ith “S h ell , ” E m il ia said that sh e did no t k n o w ; sh e on ly k n ew that h e w as w o rkin g so m ew h ere in d o w n to w n H o u s to n . E m ilia a ls o s ta te d th a t h e r h u s b a n d tu rn e d f o rt yin F e b ru a ry 1 9 9 4
. Es p a r z a ’ s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w, Fr e dd yGa l v a n , c o n f i r me d th a tEm i l i a a n d Es p a r z a c a me t o hi s hous e ar ound 8: 00 p. m . on the 1s t . H e t es t i fi ed t hat he and hi s w i fe cel ebr at ed the N ewE S P A R Z A —7

Y earw i t h E m i l i a and Espa r za on D ece m ber 31s t and Janua r y 1s t . H e s t at ed thatE m i l i a and E sp a rz a lef

t h is h o u se a ro u n d 1 :0 0 a .m . o n th e 2 n d . In c e leb ra tin g th e N e w Y e a r, th e f a m ily
s e t o f f f ir e w o rk s . G a lv a n a ls o te s tif ie d th a t E m ilia o w n e d a lig h t b lu e , f o u r- d o o r c a r. M i s ael R i vas , E m i l i a’ s fr i end, t es t i fi ed t hatE m i l i a and Espa r za c ame t o hi s hous e on t he eve ni ng of the 1s t . H e and h is f am il ythen w entt o G al van’ s hous e w i t h E m i l i a and E s p a rz a a n d s ta y e d th e re u n til a b o u t 1 1 :0 0 p .m . E m i l i a’s si st er, M i l agro L evia, t est i fi ed thatE m i l i a and E sparza cam e t o h er house betw een 8: 00 and 9: 00 p. m . on t he 1s tand l eftbetw een 1: 00 and 2: 00 a. m . on the 2nd. R i vas
a n d h is f a m ily a rr iv e d a ro u n d 9 :0 0 o r 1 0 :0 0 p .m . a n d s ta y e d f o r a b o u t a n h o u r. A ft er these w i t nesses t est i fi ed, du ri ng a ben ch co nference, Espa r z a ’ s a tt orne y , V al des,
r eques t ed addi t i onal t i m e s o t hathe coul d geta nur s e fr om the H arris C ount yM edi cal E xami ner ’ s O ffi ce t o t es t i fyand br i ng the r ape ki t . I n m aki ng t hi s r eques t , he t ol d t he tr i al ju d g e th a t th e n u rse ’s tes tim o n y w o u ld b e u n a b le “ to lin k ” E sp a rz a to th e ra p e w h e n re a d in conj unct i on w i t h t he off ens e r epor t , w hi ch i ndi cat ed that“R i os had s ex a da yortw o befor e” t he offe ns e. T he t r i al j udge as ked i f t he evi dence fr om t he r ape ki t som eh o w clear ed E s par za. V al des s ai d t hati tw oul d notand s t at ed: I tdi d have a s w ab and a s m ear . T her e w as t es t im o n y byM s . R i os t hats he appl i ed s om e C oca Col a on a bandanna, t hats he att empt ed t o cl ean up, t hat s he di dn’ tcl ean he r s el f outand thatI w antthe j uryt o hearhert es t i m onyfr om t he indi vidual th a t cond ucted the ex am i nati on of the com plai ning w i t ness f o llo w in g th e ra p e . V al des t hen s t at ed thats emen w as found on t he sw ab butthati tw as i nconcl us i ve. T he tr i alE S P A R Z A —8

Esp a rz a v . S ta te , N o. 01- 95- 00182- C R , 1996 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 3081 ( T ex. 2 A p p . — H o u ston [1 st D ist
. ] July1 8 , 1 9 9 6 ) (no t des ign ated fo r pu b li ca ti o n ). Esp a rz a v . S ta te , N o. 14- 97- 00440- C R , 1999 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 5642 ( T ex. 3 A p p .— H o u s to n [ 1 4 th D is t.] J u ly 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , p e t. r e f ’d ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). j udge gave V al des m or e t i m e t o gett he nur s e i n cour tbyt he end of t he l unch hour w hen they
w oul d r econve ne. T he j udge al s o offe r ed t o r ese t the case i f V al des w as unabl e t o gett he
nur s e ther e thatday
. T he off ens e re por t w as not admi t t ed i nt o evi dence and i s noti ncl uded in th e tr ia l r e c o rd
. A ft erl unch, t he St at e ca l l ed a pr etr i al s ervi ces offi ceri n r ebut t al
. T he off i cert es t i fi ed th a t E sp a rz a to ld h im th a t h e h a d , in th e p a st, b e e n e m p lo y e d b y V a ld e s. A f ter th is , b o th p a rt ie s re s te d . V a ld e s n e ith e r c a lle d th e n u rs e to te s tif yn o r r e q u e s te d a d d itio n a l tim e . T h e ju ryf

o u n d E sp a rz a g u iltyo f a g g ra v a ted se x u a l as s a u lt a n d se n ten c e d h im to i m pr i s onm entforl i fe. A ppeal and H abeas C orpus Procee di ngs E s par za a ppeal ed. T he Fi r s tC our tof A ppeal s i n H ous t on aff i r m ed hi s convi ct i on but
r ever s ed hi s sen tenc e and r emanded t he ca s e fora new puni s hm enthear i ng. O n r emand, 2 E sp a rz a w a s a g a in se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. T h e F o u rte e n th C o u r t o f A p p e a ls in H ous t on aff

i r m ed hi s s ent ence . 3 E s par za s oughts t at e habe as r el i ef, and w e deni ed hi s appl i cat i on for a w r i t of habe as
corpus on t he fi ndi ngs of the tr i al cour tw i t houta hea r i ng. E s par za f i l ed a fede r al pet i t i on for a w r i t of habeas corpus i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctE S P A R Z A —9

Es par z a v. D r etke , 5 4 3 U
. S
. 1 1 5 8 (20 0 5 ). 4 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 64. 01( a) ( V ernon 2006) ( l as tamended by 5 A cts 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L eg . , ch 1 3 , § 1 3 , ef f. S ep t. 1 , 2 0 0 3 ). See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt . 6 4 .0 1 (b ). 6 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . a rt. 6 4 .0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ) (A d d e d b yA c ts 7 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L eg . , ch
. 2 , § 2 , ef f. A p ri l 5, 20 0 1 ). C our t for t he S outhern D i s t r i ct of T exas . T he di s t r i ct cour t deni ed re l i ef, and E s par za f i l ed
a m o tio n f

o r a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty in th e U n ites S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F if th C i r c u i t . T h e c o u r to f

a p p e a l s d e n i e d E s p a r z a ’ s m o t i o n f o ra c e r t i f

i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty. E s par za then fi l ed a p eti ti on forcert i or ar i i n t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t , w hi ch w as deni ed. 4 C hapte r 64 Procee di ngs I n 2 0 0 3 , Es p a r z a f

i l e d a p r o s e mot i o n f

o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n DN A t e s t i n g , w i t h an
acc om pany ing s w or n aff i davi t , underC hapt er64, T exas C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e. 5 E sp a rz a c laim e d th a t:

• t he evi dence w as nevers ubj ect ed t o D N A t es t i ng;
• t hr ough n o faul tof hi s ow n, t he evi dence w as nott es t ed, and s uch t es t i ng w o u ld sh o w th a t h e is in n o c e n t;
• i f the evi dence i s s ubj ect ed t o t es t i ng, t her e w oul d be no r etr i al beca us e t es t i ng w oul d s how t hathe i s i nnocent ; and
• D N A t es t i ng i s nece s s aryt o es t abl i s h hi s i nnocenc e. 6 T he St at e fi l ed a m ot i on oppos i ng E s par za’ s r eques t . T he St at e m ai nt ai ned thatt he 7
r ape ki tand cl ot hi ng col l ect ed fr om R i os i s i n pos s es s i on of H arr i s C ount ySher i ff’ s O ffi ce. T he r ape- ki t evi dence i ncl udes : ( 1) vagi nal s w abs and s l i des ; ( 2) or al s w abs and s l i des ; ( 3)E SPA R Z A

— 10

See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 64. 03( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( V ernon 2006) ( A dded by 8 A c ts 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L e g ., c h . 2 , § 2 , e f f. A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 1 a n d a m e n d e d b yA c ts 2 0 0 3 7 8 th L e g ., c h . 1 3 § 3 , e f

f. S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 3 ). See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 6 4
. 0 3 (a)(2)(A ). 9 a vi al of bl ood; ( 4) a bl ood- s t ai n car d; and ( 5) a fa br i c cutt i ng. T he St at e ther efor e conc eded t hatevi dence s t i l l exi s t s and i s i n a condi t i on thatm akes D N A t es t i ng pos s i bl e. 8 B utt he St at e as s er t ed thatE s par za f ai l ed t o s how , by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hath e w o u ld n othave be en convi ct ed i f exc ul pat oryevi dence had bee n obt ai ned thr ough D N A t est i ng . In suppo rt , t he S t at e ci t ed the con versat i on t hat t oo k p l ace be t w een V al des,

9 E s par za’ s t r i al at t or ney , t he pr os ecut or , and the tr i al j udge i n w hi ch V al des s t at ed that , bas ed on t he off

ens e re por t , R i os r epor t ed havi ng “s ex” a dayort w o befor e s he w as as s aul t ed. T he St at e al s o at t ach ed an affi davi tfr om the tr i al pr os ecut orver i fy i ng thatR i os had r epor t ed h a v i n g “ s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s t w o d a y s p r i o rt o t h e i n c i d e n t . ” B e c a u s e R i o s h a d s e x t w o d a ys befor e the off

ens e, the St at e ar gued that , i f Espar za’ s D N A i s notfound on anyof the b io lo g ica l ev id e n c e a n d so m e u n k n o w n th ird p a rty ’s D N A is, th e n th e se e m in g lyf a v o ra b le
r es ul t s w oul d notbe exc ul pat or y . I n t he St at e’ s vi ew , “[a ] nyD N A n o tcontr i but ed by [Espar za] coul d be att r i but ed t o t he per s on w i t h w hom t he compl ai nanthad s ex pr i ort o t he offe ns e . . . . ” W ith o u t h o ld in g a h e a rin g , the trial ju d g e d e n ied E sp a rz a ’s m o tio n , sta tin g , in p a rt:

• “ R io s re p o rte d th a t sh e h a d se x u a l re latio n s tw o d a y s p rio r t o th e se x u a l as sa u lt . . . .”
• “Espar za fai l s t o s how by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hathe w oul d not have be en convi ct ed of the offens e of s exual as s aul t. . . even i f D N A t es t i ngE SPA R Z A

— 11

Esparza , 2 6 4 S .W .3 d a t 8 3 , 8 7
. 10 T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art. 6 4
. 0 3 (a)(2)(A ). 11 Esparza , 264 S. W
. 3d at88- 89. 12 1 6 5 S .W .3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 4 -6 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ). 13 I d. at361. 14 w oul d have pr oduced r es ul t s i ndi cat i ng that [Espar za] di d notcontr i but e the bi ol ogi c a l ma t t e rf

o u n d i n th e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e [ Ri o s ] h a d s e x ual re la tio n s tw o d a y s p ri o r t o th e s e x u a l a s s a u lt o f f e n s e .”
• “[Espa r za] fai l s t o m eett he r equi r ementof A r t i cl e 64. 03( a) ( 2) of the Texas C o d e o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re c o n c e rn in g h is b u rd e n o f p ro o f.” E s par za a ppeal ed the tr i al j udge’ s rul i ng t o t he Fi r s tC our tof A ppeal s . H e cl ai m ed th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d in f in d in g th a t h e h a d n o t m e t h is b u r d e n u n d e r A rticle 6 4
. 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A)
. T h a tp r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s a c o n v i c t e d p e r s o n s e e k i n g DNA t e s t i n g t o s h o w, 10 b ya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , that“a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i t yexi s t s thatthe per s on
wo u l d n o th a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f e x c u l p a t o r yr e s u l t s h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h DNA te s tin g .” 11 T he co urtof ap peals up held the tr i al j ud ge’s ruli ng for tw o reasons. F irst, th e c o u rt re

jec ted E sp a rz a ’s c laim th a t h is c a se is g o v e rn e d b yo u r d e c isio n in Sm i th v . S ta te . I n Sm ith , w e hel d t hatSm i t h w as ent i t l ed t o D N A t es t i ng beca us e he 12 sh o w e d th a t a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili tye x ists— a t lea st a 5 1 % c h a n c e
— th a t su c h tes tin g w o u ld
es t abl i s h hi s i nnocenc e i f t he re s ul t s pr oved t o be fa vor abl e. Four t een y ear s aft erhe w as 13 convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed r ape, Sm i t h fi l ed a Chapt er64 m ot i on forD N A t es t i ng. T he tr i al 14 j udge deni ed Sm i t h’ s r eques t , and the courtof appe al s aff i r m ed t he rul i ng, concl udi ng t hatE SPA R Z A

— 12

I d. at361- 63. 15 Id
. at364. 16 I d. 17 I d. 18 I d. 19 I d. at364- 65. 20 I d. 21 I d. 22 S mi t h f a i l e d t o a l l e g e s u f

f i c i e n tf a c t s i n h i s mo t i o n . On d i s c r e t i o n a r yr e v i e w, we 15 d e ter m in e d th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e rre d , rev e rse d its d e c isio n , an d re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e trial c o u rt to o rd e r D N A tes tin g . A t tria l, th e S tate u se d th e p re se n c e o f se m in a l f

lu id 16 to e sta b lish th e ra p e . W e re c o g n ize d th a t, i f S m ith ’s D N A d id n o t m a tch th e se m in a l f lu id 17 obt ai ned dur i ng t he vi ct i m ’ s r ape e xam, w hi ch w as c o nduct ed ei ghthour s aft ers he w as
a ttac k e d , the n th e re su lts w o u ld b e e x c u lp a to ry . T h e S tate a rg u e d th a t D N A tes tin g w o u ld 18 notnece s s ar i l yy i el d excul pat or yr es ul t s beca us e i tw as p o ssible t hat : ( 1) t he vi ct i m had
s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h herl i ve- i n boy fr i end t w enty - four hour s befor e the att ack, and ( 2) t he at t acke r l eftno s emi nal fl ui d. W e r ej ect ed both of thes e ar gum ent s . Fi r s t , t her e w as no 19 20 evi dence i n t h e rec o rd indi cat i ng t hatthe vi ct i m had s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h any one other t han herat t acke rt w enty - fourhour s befor e the r ape e xam . A nd s econd, the evi dence 21
s how ed thatt he att acke rl efts emi nal fl ui d dur i ng the att ack. 22 D i s t i ngui s hi ng Sm ith , t he c o ur tof appe al s i n t hi s cas e det erm i ned thatthe pr es enceE SPA R Z A

— 13

2 6 4 S .W .3 d 8 8 -8 9
. 23 I d. 24 I d. 25 I d. 26 I d. at89 ( ci t i ng J

o h n so n v . S ta te , 183 S. W
. 3d 515, 520 ( T ex. A pp.
— H ous t on 27 [1 4 th D ist
. ] 20 0 6 , p et. d ism ’d)).

I d. 28 I d. 29 o f b i o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e n o tb e l o n g i n g t o E s p a r z a w o u l d n o tn e c e s s a r i l y b e e x c u l p a t o r y. 23 A lth o u g h the c o u rto b serv ed that the assa il an t t o ld R ios tha t he h ad ejac u lat ed , the c o u rt d e te rm in e d that E sp arz a’s a tt o rne ytold the tr ial jud g e tha t th e e v iden ce w o u ld n o t “clear” E s par za. T he courtfur t hernot ed that , unl i ke Sm ith , w h ere ther e w as no evi dence of a

24 pr evi ous s exual encount er , t he pol i ce r epor t s t at ed t hat R i os had s ex a day or t w o befor e the
as s aul t . T he cour t fur t herobs erved thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s aff i davi tver i fi ed thatthe pol i ce 25
r epor tcont ai ned R i os ’ s di s cl os ur e thats he had s ex tw o day s befor e the off ens e. 26 S e c o n d , t h e c o u r t d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n te v i d e n c e , a p a r tf

r o m a n yDNA
ev iden ce , estab li sh ing that E sp arz a a ssau lt ed R ios. In rea ch ing this co n clus ion , the c o u rt 27
r el i ed on Lucer o’ s and C antu’ s i dent i fi cat i on of Espar za. 28 B a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g , t h e c o u r tc o n c l u d e d t h a tE s p a r z a “ f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h , b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e , t h a th e wo u l d n o th a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d i f f a v o r a b l e DNA
re s u lts h a d b e e n o b ta in e d th ro u g h th e re q u e s te d te s tin g .” 29E SPA R Z A

— 14

Id
. at 89 -90 (B land , J. , d issen ti n g ). 30 I d. at 89 (B land , J. , d issen ti n g ). 31 I d. at 90 (B land , J. , d issen ti n g ). 32 I d. (B land , J. , d issen ti n g ). 33 Ju stic e B lan d d iss e n ted
. S h e m a in tain e d th a t th e m a jo rity ’s r e a d in g o f

A rticle 30 64. 03( a) ( 2 ) ( A) i s i n c o r r e c tb e c a u s e th e s t a tu t e r e q u i r e s c o u r t s , i n d e c i d i n g whe t h e rt e s t i ng
s houl d be conduct ed, t o as s um e t hat t es t i ng w oul d y i el d excul pat ory r es ul t s . J us t i ce Bl and 31 det erm i ned thatourdeci s i on i n Sm ith c a se is c o n tro lli n g : T hi s cas e i s s i m i l art o Sm ith i n that : ( 1) no evi dence exi s t s i n the convi ct i ng cour tr ecor d or t hi s r ecor d t hatthe compl ai ni ng w i t nes s had s ex w i t h any one el se i n the 24 h ou rs befo re s he w as ass ault ed; ( 2) the co m plai ning w i t ness t es t i fi ed thatt he s emi nal fl ui d of heratt acke rw as pr es entaft erthe r ape; and ( 3) a r ape ki tdone al m os ti m m edi at el yaft ert he as s aul tr ecove r ed s em i nal fl ui d. 32 A nd as s um i ng t hat R ios had s ex tw enty - fourhour s befor e s he w as at t acke d, J us t i ce Bl and
s t at ed thatR i os ’ s pr evi ous s exual encount er“i s t oo r emot e fr om t he offens e t o concl ude that D N A te s t re s u lts f

ro m e v id e n c e o b ta in e d a f te r th e o f f e n s e w o u ld c a rr yn o e v id e n tia ry v a lu e .” L i ke t he evi dence i n Sm ith , “ th e D N A re c o v e re d a f ter th e a ttac k in th is c a se is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t to b e lo n g to th e a tta c k e r.” 33

E s parza’ s P et i t i on f

or D i s cre t i onary R evi ew W e gr ant ed Espar za’ s pet i t i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew t o det erm i ne w hether : ( 1) t he
cour t of appea l s ’ s deci s i on confl i ct s w i t h ourdeci s i on i n Sm ith , an d (2 ) th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls
err ed i n concl udi ng t hat E s par za fai l ed t o s how , by a pre ponder ance of the evi dence , thatheE SPA R Z A

— 15

w oul d noth av e been c onvi ct ed i f exc ul pat oryr es ul t s w er e obt ai ned thr ough D N A t es t i ng. In h is p e tit io n a n d b rie f , E sp a rz a a rg u e s th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls m a d e in a p p ro p ria te
as s um pt i ons about t he evi dence t hatt he r ecor d does nots uppor t . H e as s ert s t hatt her e i s no evi dence e stab li s hi ng t hats emen ors emi nal fl ui d w as l efti n R i os ’ s vagi na as a r es ul tof h a v in g se x tw o d a y s b e f o re sh e w a s a ttac k e d . F o r in s tan c e , E sp a rz a o p in e s th a t itis unknow n w hetherR i os ’ s par t nerw as m al e. B ut even as s um i ng t hat herpar t nerw as m al e, E sparza contends t hat i ti s unk no w n w hetherhe u sed a co nd om or ej ac u lated i nsi de R i os. E s par za f

ur t her c l ai m s t hatR i os ’ s per s onal hy gi eni c r i tual s ar e unknow n; s he mayhave douched a ft erhavi n g co ns ens ual s exual i nt er cour s e. A s a r es ul t , E s par za c ont ends t hat Ju sti ce B land ’s re lia n c e o n o u r Sm ith cas e i s corr ectand thathe has s at i s fi ed hi s bur den
u n d er A rt icl e 6 4
. 0 3 (a)(2)(A ). H ol di ng t o i t s pr evi ous pos i t i on, t he St at e ar gues t hatt her e i s no evi den ce in t he
r ecor d i ndi cat i ng t hatanyD N A evi dence r ecove r ed fr om R i os w oul d bel ong t o heras s ai l ant beca us e R i os had cons ens ual s ex w i th s om eone other t han Espar za tw o day s befor e s he w as
a ss a u lted
. T h e r e f

o r e , an yD N A tes tin g th a t sh o w e d th e p re se n c e o f D N A b e lo n g in g to
s om eone othert han Espar za does not r ai s e a r eas onabl e proba bi l i t yt hathe w oul d nothave been c onvi ct ed. A n a ly sis R evi ew i ng cour t s defe rt o a tr i al j udge’ s fi ndi ngs of fac tw hen theyar e s uppor t ed byE SPA R Z A

— 16

Sm ith , 165 S. W
. 3d at363; se e a lso W h ita ke r v . S ta te , 160 S. W
. 3d 5, 8 ( T ex. 34 C r i m . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng R ive ra v . S ta te , 8 9 S
. W
. 3 d 5 5 , 5 9 (T ex . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 )).

I d. 35 I d. 36 See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . 6 4 .0 3 (a )( 2 )( A ). 37 t he record. T hey al so defe r t o a t ri al j ud ge’s ap pli cat i on of law t o fac tqu est i on s w hen t ho se

34 ques t i ons tur n on cr edi bi l i t yand demeanor
. Fi nal l y , pur e l egal i s s ues ar e gi ven a de novo 35 revi ew byapp el l at e cou rt s. 36 W e b e g in b ya d d re ss in g th e f irst rea so n th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls e m p lo y e d to u p h o ld th e trial ju d g e ’s d e n ial o f E sp a rz a ’s m o tio n f o r D N A tes tin g
— th a t a n yD N A tes tin g w o u ld sh o w th e p re se n c e o f

a th ird p a rty ’s D N A a n d th e re f o re p re v e n ts E sp a rz a f

ro m sa tisf

y in g h is bur den underA r t i cl e 64. 03( a) ( 2) ( A )
. C ontr aryt o t he conc l us i on r eac hed by t he tr i al j udge and co u rt of appe al s , R i os ’ s pr i ors exual encount erdoes notpr ecl ude Espar za f r om
e sta b lish in g th a t, by a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , 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 y i el ded exc ul pat or yr es ul t s . T hi s cas e i s i ndeed s i m i l art o Sm ith
. T h e re co rd 37 est ab li shes t hatR i os ’ s at t acke rdepos i t ed s emen ors emi nal fl ui d i ns i de R i os dur i ng t he
assa u lt
. H o w ev er, th e lac k o f e v id e n c e s u rr o u n d ing the f ac ts an d circu m stan ce s o f R ios’s
s e x u a l e n c o u n t e rt wo d a y s b e f o r e s h e wa s a t t a c k e d d o e s n o ts u p p o r tt h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a tDNA evi dence r ecove r ed fr om R i os w oul d bel ong t o s om eone other tha n E s par za. T her e i s no evi dence s how i ng t hatR i os ’ s par t nerdepos i t ed s emen ors emi nal fl ui d i ns i de of he rvagi na dur i ng t he enc ount er . N ordoes t he r ecor d r evea l w h ethe r R ios douched a ft erhavi ng s ex.E SPA R Z A

— 17

See e
. g. , E

x par t e Reed , 2 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 5
- 0 6 , 7 1 2 , 7 4 5 , 7 5 0 ( Te x . Cr i m. 38 A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 2 3 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 39 I d. 40 Id
. at232. 41 T hi r d, and mosti m por t ant l y , t her e is no s ci ent i fi c evi dence s uppor t i ng t he cont ent i on t hat b io lo g ica l m a ter ial (se m e n o r se m in a l f lu id ) de p o site d tw o d a y s b e f o re R io s w a s se x u a lly
as s aul t ed w oul d s t i l l be pre s ent i ns i de R i os and det ect abl e w hen t he ra pe ki t w as conduct ed. 38 T he part i es and t he l ow er cour t s i ncorr ect l y as s um ed t hat s uch s peci fi c s ci ent i fi c know l edge i s bot h comm on and cus t om ar i l yacc ept ed. B eca us e the r ecor d i s defi ci enti n var i ous
r es pect s , t he courtof appe al s err ed i n aff i r m i ng t he tr i al j udge’ s fi ndi ng t hatR i os ’ s s exual encount ert w o day s befor e t he ass aul t for ecl os es E s par za fr om s at i s fy i ng hi s bur den under A rt ic le 6 4 .0 3 (a )( 2 )( A ). E x am ining the c o u rto f a p p ea ls ’s sec o n d rea so n fo r up h o lding the tri al j u d g e’s
ru lin g
— th a t th e re is s u f f icie n t ev id e n c e , b e sid e s D N A e v id e n c e , to e sta b lish g u ilt

— w e h o ld t hatt hi s deci s i on confl i ct s w i t h ourunani m ou s o p i ni on i n B la c k lo c k v . S ta te . W e i s s ued

39 B l acklock appr oxi m at el y a m ont h aft er t he cour tof appe al s ’ s opi ni on i n t hi s cas e. I n t hat 40
c a se , the trial ju d g e d e n ied B lac k lo c k ’s m o tio n f o r D N A tes tin g re a so n in g , in p a rt, th a t, beca us e the vi ct i m knew and i dent i fi ed herat t acke r , B l ackl ock fa il ed to meethi s bur den underA r t i cl e 64. 03( a) ( 2) ( A )
. T he courtof appe al s aff i r m ed, hol di ng thatB l ackl ock fa i l ed 41E SPA R Z A

— 18

I d. 42 I d. a t 2 3 3
. 43 I d. a t 2 3 2
. 44 Id
. 45 I d. at233. 46 Id
. 47 t o al l ege s uffi ci entfac t s i n hi s m o t i on. W e r ever s ed and r emanded the ca s e t o t he tr i al 42
cou rt . In doing so, w e held that B l acklock’s factual al l egati on s w ere s uff i ci ent. B ecause 43 44 B l ackl ock s oughtt es t i ng of bi ol ogi cal evi dence l eftbya l one as s ai l ant , w e conc l uded that

“ e x c u lp a to ryD N A tes t re su lts, ex c lu d in g [ B lac k lo c k ] a s th e d o n o r o f th is m a ter ial, w o u ld
e sta b li sh [his ] i nn ocen ce. ” F or pu rposes of const rui ng B l acklock’s m oti on , w e fo u n d it 45 irrelev an t th at th e v ict im k n ew B lack lock an d iden ti fied h im as h er a tt ac k er. 46 A dher i ng t o B l acklock , w e hol d t hatL ucer o’ s and C antu’ s ey e- w i t nes s i dent i fi cat i on
o f E s p a r z a i s o f

n o c o n s e q u e n c e i n c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e rE s p a r z a h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , b y a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , excul pat ory D N A t es t s w oul d pr ove hi s i nnocenc e. I n s exual
as s aul tcas es l i ke thi s , anyoverwhe l mi n g e y e - wi tn e s s i d e n t i fi cat i on and s t r ong ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ( e. g. , E s par za’ s bus i nes s car d, l i ght
- bl ue, four
- doorcar , age, and the fi r ew or ks on t he fl o o rboar d) s uppor t i ng gui l ti s i ncons equent i al w hen as s es s i ng w hethera convi ct ed per s on has s uffi ci ent l yal l eged thatexcul pat oryD N A evi dence w oul d pr ove hi s i nnocenc e
u n d er A rt icl e 6 4
. 0 3 (a)(2)(A ). 47 C oncl usi onE SPA R Z A

— 19

T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls’s ju d g m e n t is re v e rse d b e c a u se E sp a rz a h a s s h o w n a re a so n a b le pr obabi l i t y t hat he w oul d nothave be en convi ct ed i f exc ul pat oryr es ul t s had bee n obt ai ned t hr ough D N A t es t i ng. W e r ever s e and r emand t hi s cas e t o the tr i al co u rt forpr ocee di ngs
c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : M ay13, 2009 PU BL I SH