Dontae Terrell Moore v. Texas

Petitioner testified at trial that the deceased tried to take his gun during a robbery inside a car. The gun discharged once during a struggle, and the deceased was unintentionally killed. A bullet was found in the deceased’s head. The prosecutor called a witness who testified that, although the first shot was fired unintentionally during a struggle, petitioner then intentionally fired two more shots, one of which killed the deceased. The car doors were closed, the windows were up, and no other bullets or bullet strikes were found in the car. Petitioner was convicted of capital murder instead of felony murder. The state habeas trial court recommended a new trial because the prosecutor intentionally elicited misleading testimony that petitioner fired three shots inside the car and made false and misleading statements during her closing argument. Nonetheless, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) denied relief, presumably on the basis that the false and misleading testimony and argument were not “material.” The TCCA’s standard for determining the “materiality” of perjured testimony is contrary to the “materiality” standard set forth in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025). See Ex parte Warner, 721 S.W.3d 436, 447-48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2025) (Finley, J., concurring). The TCCA’s unreasoned order in petitioner’s case failed to apply the correct “materiality” standard. The question presented is: Whether the Court should grant certiorari, vacate the TCCA’s judgment, and remand to apply the correct “materiality” standard for false and misleading testimony and argument.