Background
In 2008, Cha-Ka Romain Johnson was convicted by jury of capital murder in the death of Hidi Gower — a contract killing orchestrated by Hidi’s husband, Don Gower, who paid Johnson to commit the murder. DNA testing performed on the murder weapon before trial excluded Johnson as a contributor to the DNA specimen found on the gun; the specimen was identified as coming from a female contributor and was never matched to anyone. Johnson was convicted under both a direct-actor theory and the Texas “law of parties” theory, with multiple corroborating witnesses implicating him.
In 2020, Johnson filed his first post-conviction motion for DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking additional testing of the gun. That motion was denied by the Austin Court of Appeals, which held that further testing would not produce exculpatory results because prior testing had already excluded Johnson as a DNA contributor.
In August 2024, Johnson filed a second Chapter 64 motion raising two new grounds: (1) newer DNA testing techniques would produce more accurate and probative results than those from the original test; and (2) the unidentified female DNA specimen should be compared to the DNA of Regina Edwards, a key trial witness who denied being involved in the murder plot. Johnson theorized that a match to Edwards would expose her trial testimony as false, undermine her corroborating testimony, and reveal the real killer. The convicting court denied the motion without a hearing, and the appeal was transferred to the Eighth Court of Appeals from the Austin court under the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization program.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed denial on both grounds in an opinion by Justice Soto. On the newer-techniques argument, the court held that although Chapter 64 permits retesting where “newer testing techniques…provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative” than prior tests, Johnson failed to explain what specific newer techniques he sought or how their results would be more probative. Critically, the original testing had already excluded Johnson as a contributor — results that were already exculpatory in nature — so he could not establish that additional testing would produce a meaningfully different or more useful result. Under Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), a movant must show newer techniques would be both more accurate and more probative; Johnson met neither showing.
On the request to compare the specimen to Edwards’s DNA, the court held that Chapter 64 does not authorize a convicted person to compel the State to compare a DNA specimen to any specific named individual. Article 64.035 directs that unidentified DNA profiles be compared only to existing FBI and DPS databases — not to suspects identified by the movant. In any event, even assuming Edwards’s DNA matched the specimen, it would not exculpate Johnson. Under the law of parties (Texas Penal Code §§ 7.01–7.02), Johnson’s criminal responsibility for the murder was not conditioned on his being the lone gunman: the State also prosecuted him as a party who aided and assisted the conspiracy. Prior courts had already determined that substantial evidence independent of the witnesses’ testimony supported the jury’s verdict — including non-accomplice testimony placing Johnson at the scene and his own admissions to law enforcement. Identifying a third party’s DNA on the gun used in a multi-actor conspiracy does not negate party liability where other substantial evidence of guilt remains. The court followed Hall v. State, 569 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019), and Swearingen v. State, 303 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Key Takeaways
- Under Chapter 64, a movant seeking post-conviction DNA retesting on “newer techniques” grounds must show that newer methods would produce results both more accurate and more probative than prior tests. Where prior testing already excluded the movant as a contributor — an already-exculpatory result — retesting with newer techniques generally cannot meet this standard without a specific, explained basis for expecting more probative results.
- Chapter 64 authorizes comparison of unidentified DNA profiles only to existing FBI and DPS databases (Article 64.035). A convicted person cannot use a Chapter 64 motion to compel the State to compare a DNA specimen to a specific individual identified by the movant.
- Where a defendant was convicted under a law-of-parties theory, third-party DNA on the murder weapon is not automatically exculpatory. The “substantial evidence of guilt” standard under Hall and Swearingen weighs heavily against granting DNA testing when multiple actors participated in the offense and the DNA merely identifies one of several potential contributors.
- On appeal from a Chapter 64 denial decided solely on written submissions (no witness testimony), the court of appeals reviews the trial court’s decision de novo rather than deferring to the trial court’s fact findings.
Why It Matters
Post-conviction DNA testing litigation under Chapter 64 is a perennial issue in Texas criminal courts, particularly in capital and life-sentence cases. Johnson draws a clear line on two recurring requests: seeking newer-technique retesting when prior testing was already exculpatory, and seeking DNA comparisons to specific suspects the movant names. Both are outside the statute’s scope. Defense counsel litigating Chapter 64 motions should document specifically what newer techniques they seek and how their results would be more probative — not just more accurate — than results already in the record.
The law-of-parties analysis is equally important. Many Texas capital and serious felony convictions rest on party liability rather than a lone-gunman theory. This opinion confirms that where multiple actors participated, the “lone assailant” exception to the substantial-evidence-of-guilt test does not apply, and third-party DNA on the weapon does not meet the Chapter 64 threshold. Practitioners seeking post-conviction relief in multi-defendant cases should be prepared to address the law-of-parties issue directly in their DNA testing motions.