Background
Patrick Evans was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison for robbing and killing Melvyn Williams. Trial evidence indicated that Evans lured Williams into Evans’s car, shot him, stole drugs and guns from his apartment, transported his body from Houston to Fort Worth, and recruited associates to help move the body into a shed. Police recovered Williams’s body and the murder weapon from the shed.
Pretrial testing linked Williams’s DNA to blood and other biological material in Evans’s car and on the murder weapon. A mixed DNA profile from the weapon’s grip did not exclude Evans. After multiple unsuccessful appeals, habeas petitions, and four prior motions for postconviction DNA testing, Evans filed a fifth motion seeking testing or retesting of several firearms, a passenger-seatbelt latch, and a box of ammunition. The trial court denied the motion, and Evans also challenged the absence of an appointed expert and an evidentiary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. Even assuming that newer testing would identify another person’s DNA on the requested items, Evans failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained. The court emphasized the substantial independent evidence of guilt, including witness testimony, the recovery of Williams’s body and the murder weapon, and existing DNA evidence linking Williams to Evans’s car and linking Evans to a mixed profile on the weapon’s grip.
The court also rejected Evans’s claims concerning an expert and an evidentiary hearing. The record did not show that he filed a motion requesting an expert, obtained a ruling, or brought such a motion to the trial court’s attention. In any event, he had not satisfied Chapter 64’s requirements for DNA testing. Because Chapter 64 did not entitle him to testing, the trial court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A Chapter 64 applicant must show that favorable DNA results would create a reasonable probability that the applicant would not have been convicted.
- Identifying another person’s DNA is insufficient when substantial independent evidence still supports the conviction.
- A party cannot establish error regarding an expert motion without a record showing that the motion was presented to the trial court, and Chapter 64 does not require a hearing before determining eligibility for DNA testing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts assess the potential exculpatory value of proposed DNA testing against the entire trial record. New testing techniques or the possible discovery of another contributor will not justify postconviction testing when the anticipated results would not undermine substantial independent evidence of guilt.