Hood v. State

The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in finding that DNA results would not be exculpatory and that he would have been convicted even with DNA testing. His argument fails because the evidence at trial conclusively established his guilt.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Charles Dean Hood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In the fall of 1989, Hood was living with his boss, Ronald Williamson, and his boss’ girlfriend, Tracie Wallace (the two victims in this case). On Nov. 1, 1989, Hood was scheduled to report to work at 12:30 p.m. At 11:30 a.m., Hood’s boss came home for lunch and found a note allegedly from his girlfriend saying that she had gone jogging. However, Williamson apparently suspected something was wrong, since Tracie’s name was misspelled on the note. Williamson called the police and told them that he believed that his girlfriend had been abducted. After the police arrived at the victims’ house, they found both Williamson and Wallace dead with gunshot wounds to their heads. Hood’s fingerprints were found on the “girlfriend’s” note, on garbage bags that had covered her dead body, and on documents that had been taken from his boss’ safe. Hood was also later found to be in possession of several items of Williamson’s property. Hood filed a motion for DNA testing on May 19, 2004. In it, he requested testing of eight different items: a tan jacket, two pillowcases, a pair of jeans, a T-shirt, a black jacket, a comforter, and a sponge. He attached to his motion an anonymous letter from a “Concerned Citizen” sent to the Collin County District Attorney in May 2003. The letter implies that Hood is innocent of the crime. The trial judge found that testing of the items could not provide results that could exculpate Hood. HOLDING:Affirmed. Hood argues that the trial judge applied the wrong burden of proof. He complains that the judge required him to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing.” According to Hood, applying this burden of proof required him to “actually establish” that he would not have been convicted. But, Hood argues, he should have been required to prove only a “probability” that he would not have been convicted. Hood’s argument fails because he relies on an outdated version of the statute. The statute now requires a convicted person to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing.” The current statute applies to cases in which the DNA motion was filed after the statute’s effective date. Hood’s motion was filed May 19, 2004. The trial judge therefore applied the correct statute and the correct burden of proof. The evidence at trial conclusively established Hood’s guilt, the court finds. Even if DNA tests revealed the blood of another individual at the crime scene that evidence would at most establish that Hood acted with someone else in committing the crime. Hood failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing. OPINION:Keasler, J., delivered the opinion of the court joined by Keller, P.J., and Price, Womack, Johnson, Hervey, Holcomb, and Cochran, JJ. Meyers, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.