CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. 74,135
Regular Panel Decision

Kutzner v. State

This case is an appeal from the convicting court's denial of appellant Kutzner's motion for DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, sought DNA testing on fingernail scrapings and hair samples. The central issues addressed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were its jurisdiction to review the denial of DNA testing and whether the appellant met the statutory requirements for such testing. The Court affirmed the convicting court's decision, ruling that it possessed the necessary jurisdiction and that Kutzner failed to establish a reasonable probability that exculpatory DNA results would prove his innocence, or that his request was not made to unreasonably delay his execution.

DNA testingCapital murderPost-conviction reliefAppellate jurisdictionTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureExculpatory evidenceReasonable probabilityProsecutorial misconductActual innocenceLegislative intent
References
29
Case No. 07-03-0383-CR; 07-03-0384-CR; 07-03-0385-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

David Matthew Layton v. State

David Matthew Layton, convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault of a child, appealed the denial of his motions for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. He argued that the trial court erred in denying these motions, asserting that exculpatory DNA results would have prevented his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo reviewed his claims, noting that his arguments largely rehashed prior challenges to the sufficiency of evidence. The court concluded that Layton failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA testing results had been obtained. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the DNA testing motions was affirmed.

Criminal LawAggravated KidnappingAggravated Sexual AssaultDNA TestingPost-Conviction ReliefAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureDenial of MotionAffirmed Conviction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. 81-367
Regular Panel Decision

Dabbs v. Vergari

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree rape, sought to compel the District Attorney to permit DNA testing of physical evidence from his criminal trial (indictment No. 81-367). The evidence, including semen and bodily secretions, had yielded inconclusive results at his 1984 trial but could now be conclusively tested using modern DNA analysis. The respondent District Attorney opposed the request, arguing a lack of statutory right to post-conviction discovery and the speculative nature of the application. The court recharacterized the request as a post-conviction motion for discovery in the criminal action. It affirmed a constitutional right to exculpatory information and found that where preserved evidence has high exculpatory potential, it should be discoverable. The court granted the petition, ordering the transfer of the physical evidence to Lifecodes, Inc. for DNA testing, emphasizing the importance of correcting potential miscarriages of justice.

DNA TestingPost-Conviction DiscoveryCPLR Article 78CPL Article 440Rape First DegreeExculpatory EvidenceBrady v MarylandDue ProcessForensic EvidenceRight to Fair Trial
References
31
Case No. 05-13-01547-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2015

Harriman, Timothy Scott

Timothy Scott Harriman, previously convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty-four years' imprisonment, appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion for DNA testing. Harriman argued that identity was an issue in his case and that exculpatory DNA results would have changed his conviction. The State contended that identity was not an issue due to Harriman's admitted conduct of strangling the victim, and any exculpatory DNA evidence would only "muddy the waters" as other people were present. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, ruling that Harriman failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for DNA testing, specifically that identity was not an issue in the case and that exculpatory DNA results would not have led to a different conviction given his admission of the act.

Criminal AppealDNA TestingPost-Conviction ReliefMurder ConvictionIdentity DisputeExculpatory EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionTexas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64StrangulationFactual Innocence
References
31
Case No. 04-04-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2004

in the Interest of J.A.G., a Minor Child

William Henry Ashcraft, an incarcerated individual, appealed a default judgment that established his parent-child relationship with J.A.G. The Office of the Texas Attorney General had initiated the petition. Ashcraft's counsel failed to appear, resulting in the default judgment, which also appointed him joint managing conservator and ordered child support. Ashcraft's subsequent motions denying paternity and requesting DNA testing were denied. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment, citing the trial court's error in waiving the record of proceedings for an absent and unrepresented party, and its abuse of discretion in denying Ashcraft a new trial and DNA testing, as the Craddock test elements for setting aside a default judgment were satisfied.

Parent-child relationshipDefault judgment appealDNA testingIncarcerationWaiver of recordAbuse of discretionCraddock testChild supportFamily LawTexas Courts of Appeals
References
7
Case No. 03-08-00585-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2010

in Re Michael Wayne Morton

In 1987, Michael Wayne Morton was convicted of his wife's murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2005, he sought forensic DNA testing of evidence under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing it could undermine his conviction. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and fingerprint evidence, finding they did not meet Chapter 64 requirements. However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana found near the crime scene, concluding that if exculpatory DNA results were obtained from it, Morton would likely not have been convicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

DNA testingpost-conviction reliefforensic evidencemurder convictioncircumstantial evidenceexculpatory evidenceunknown intruderappellate reviewcriminal procedureTexas law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Heaven A. A. (Tyrone W.--Stephanie A.)

The case addresses whether a Family Court can terminate a putative father's parental rights for abandonment without first establishing paternity. SCO Family of Services petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Stephanie A. and putative father Tyrone W. for abandonment of their child, Heaven. Tyrone W. disputed paternity and requested a DNA test, which the Family Court denied, proceeding to find abandonment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a Family Court must make a threshold factual determination of paternity, through DNA testing if requested, before ruling on abandonment to terminate parental rights. The court emphasized the potential negative stigma of an abandonment finding on an individual whose paternity has not been established.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentPaternity DisputeDNA TestingFamily LawAdoption ConsentPutative Father RegistrySocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 890 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational