### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00216- CR

In re Stewart Hunter

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 94-1 618, HO NORAB LE MICH AEL LYNCH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N I n J une 1994, Stewar

t Hunter plea ded g uilty

to ag g ravated sexual assault and wa s sentenc ed to fiftee n y ear s in prison as called for in a plea ba rg ain. I n October

2002, he filed a

pro se application fo r fo re n s i c DNA testing a nd an attorne y

was a ppointed to repre sent him. He now ap p ea l s fr o m t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s o rd er d en y i n g t h e r eq u es tfo r t es t i n g. We summarize the pertinent fa cts shown i n d o cu ments contained in the c lerk’s

re c or d. Th e a ssa

ult too k p la c e a t a

bo ut 3 :30 a .m. on

Janu a ry 30 , 19 94 , in a mot e l r oo m on Sou th Congr ess Avenue in Austin. The complainant, who was hearing impaired, lived ne ar the motel. At the hospital later that da

y , the complainant told the sex ual assault nurse examiner that she wa s taking

o u th er t ra s h wh en s h e wa s ap p ro ac h ed b y a “gu y . ” S h e c o u l d n o tu n d er s t an d

wh at h e w as s ay i n g, and he a sked her

to come inside his roo m “w h ere he c ould write thing s.” Two other males we re aslee p in the room. When the first man seiz ed her arm, she scre amed and attempted to g et help from the other me n by

pointing at the te lepho n e. T he complaina nt and the assa ilant strugg led, and he

su c c e e de d in

te a ri ng of

f h e r p a nts a nd

un de rw e a r. He punc he d he r tw ic e a nd c ho ke d he r. She tol d2

the nurse that she may

have “ blacke d out [ for] a fe w minutes.” The a ssailant “[t] ried to ra pe her but couldn ’ t g e t in

. ” H e p e n e tr a te d h e r w it h h is f in g e r a n d “ th e n r a

p e d h e r w it

h [h is ] p e n is

. ” The complainant fina lly

esca ped and w ent for he lp. Th e Sta te ’s re sp on se to t he mot ion

fo r D NAte sti ng state s th a t Hun ter and his companions we re a

rre sted at a bus stop nea

r the mot el s hortly afte r the a ssault and identified at the

sc e ne by the c omp la ina

nt. An Au sti n p oli c e of

fi c e r s ub se qu e ntl y

a pp lie d f or a sear ch warr a nt t o obtain biologica l samples from Hunter. The officer ’s affidavit in support of the wa rra nt application states that the complaina

nt made a positive identification of Hunter shortly afte r t he assault. Two other witnesse s to the assault, Chris Broa dway and Nor man Owe ns, also identified Hunter as the perpe trator. Hu nte r w a s s i xt e e n y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n s e . H e a g r e e d t o b e tr ie d in district court and to plea d g uilty in exchang e for

the State’s promise t o rec ommend a fifte en-y ear sentenc e. Eve Thurman, a community

supervision offic er, inter viewed H unter ten da

y s b efor e he enter ed h is p le a . I n a n a f

f id a v it , T h u r

ma n s tate d th a t H u n te r

“ r e a d il y a d mi tt e d h is p r e s e n c e and participation” and did not “attempt to deny his involvement or attempt to redire ct the blame on the oth e r m a le s a t th e sc e ne .” Hunte r d e sc ri be d “ str iki ng a nd fo nd lin g the vic tima nd

his a tte mpt s to eng ag e in sexual intercourse

. ” Ac cording to Thurma n’s af fidavit, “Hunte r did not try to deny the events lea ding up to the encounte r i n the hot el room, nor hi s actions whil e in t he hotel room, e x cept to deny vag inal penetr ation, but he did admit digital pene tration ‘somewhe re.’ ” The indictment conta ined multiple counts alleg ing that Hunter pe netra ted the

c omp la ina

nt v a g ina lly

a nd a na lly wi th h is f

ing e r a nd his pe nis

. Th e Sta te wa ive d a ll the c ounts except the one a lleg ing pe netration of the complainant’s se x org an by Hunter’ s sex orga

n.Hunter’ s motion for fore nsic DNA te sting wa s fi l ed bef ore the eff

ective date of the 2003 1 amendments to cha

pter 64, a nd is theref

ore g overne d by

the law in ef

fec t at the time the motion was filed. See Act of A

pril 25, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 13, § 8, 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 16, 17. Hunte r ha d th e burd e n to sh owa re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity that ex cul pat ory

DN A t e sts wo uld

pr ov e his innocenc e. Se e Kut

zn e r v . S tat e , 75 S.W .3d 427, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

3 I n its order de ny ing the motion for DNA testing, the district court found that Hunte r pleade d g u il ty , n e v e r d e n ie d h is in v o lv e me n t o r a tt e mp te d to r e d ir e c t b la me o n to th e o th e r

males p re s e n tat t h e a s s au l t , an d ad m i t t eds t ri k i n g an d

fo n d l i n g t h e c o mp l ai n an ti n an at t em p tt o en gage in sex ual interc ourse. The court conclude d that Hunter is not entitled to D NA testing beca use: (1) ide nti ty wa s and is n ot a n is su e in t

his c a se , a

nd (2 ) Hun ter fai led to pr ov e that a re a so na ble probability

exis ted that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory

results had been obta ined throug h DNA testing

. See A c t o f A p r il 3 , 2 0 0 1 , 7 7 th L e g . , R. S. , c h

. 2 , § 2 , 2 0 0 1 T e x. Gen. L aws 2, 3 (a

mended 2003) (cur

rent version at Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 64.03(a )(1) (B ), (2 )( A) (We st Su

pp . 2 00 5) ). We de fe r to the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f h ist or ic a l f a c t, b ut c on du c t a 1 de novo revie w of its a

pplication of the law to the se fa cts. Ri v e ra v . S tat e , 8 9 S. W. 3 d 5 5 , 5 9 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2002).

I n h is b ri e f t o th is C ourt , Hunte r c ha lle ng e s the tr ia l c ourt ’s c on c lus ion that id e nti ty

was a nd is not an issue. He a rgue s t h at if DNAtests of the vag inal swabs take n during the complainant’s phy sical examination were exculpatory , it would prove that he did not penetrate the complainant with his penis despite his g uilty plea and the c omplainant’s identifica tion. Se e Sm ith

v . S tat e , 165 S.W .3d 361, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The opinion in Sm ith on which Hunter relies is leg ally and fa ctually

distinguishable f

rom the ca

use bef ore us. Sm ith was decided under the 2003 amendment to article 64.03(a) (2)( A) that chang ed the DNA test applicant’ s burden of proof. Id . at 36 3- 64 ; se e als o H

oo d v . S tat e , 158 S.W .3d 480, 482 (T ex . Crim. App. 2005). And under the4

evidenc e in that case , the defe ndant could not ha ve been g uilty as a party but only as the attac ker w ho left the seminal f

luid. Sm ith , 165 S.W .3d at 364-65. Hunter admitted that he was prese nt in the motel r oom w hen the assault took place , s t ru ck and f

ondled the complaina

nt, attempted to eng ag e in sexual intercourse with her, a nd penetr ated he r with his f

inge r. Given this e vidence , the prese nce of another person’ s DNA on the

va g ina l sw a

bs wo uld no t c o n s t i t

ut e a f f i r m a tiv e e vid e nc e of

Hunte r’ s inno c e nc e . T he e vid e nc e wo uld support Hunter’ s conviction as a pa rty to the agg ravated sexual assault by vag inal penetr ation even if the DNA te sts were exculpatory as to him. Se e W

ils on v . S tat e , 1 85 S.W. 3d

48 1, 48 5 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ) ( ho ldi ng that if DN A te sti ng sh ow e d that the re wa s a n a dd iti on a l pe rp e tr a tor , it wo uld have no e ff

e c t on de fe nd a nt’ s g uil t a s a

pa rt y ); se e als o Sk

inn e r v . S tat e , 1 2 2 S. W. 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 2003). We ag ree with the trial court’s conclusion that Hunter failed to prove that there is a rea sonable proba

bility that he would not ha

ve been prosec uted or c onvicted if e x culpatory DNA test results had bee n obtained.

Hunte r’ s p oin t of

e rr or is o ve rr ule d a nd the order de nyingfo re ns ic DN A t e sti ng is aff irmed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Oc tober 6, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh