The California Supreme Court has upheld the murder conviction of Larry Kusuth Hazlett, Jr., in the case of Tana Woolley, a crime dating back to 1978. The court's ruling, filed on November 10, 2026, confirms the use of DNA evidence in the trial, which played a crucial role in linking Hazlett to the crime. This decision impacts not only Hazlett but also sets a precedent for how cold cases may be prosecuted using modern forensic techniques.

The case originated when the Kern County District Attorney charged Hazlett with first-degree murder in March 2003, nearly 25 years after Woolley's death. The court noted that the crime occurred under the 1977 death penalty law, which was applicable due to the timing of the murder. Hazlett was also charged with two felony-murder special circumstances, alleging that the murder was committed during the commission of rape and burglary. The jury convicted Hazlett, and he received a death sentence.

The dispute began when Hazlett appealed his conviction, arguing against the admissibility of certain evidence and the handling of jury selection. The case eventually reached the California Supreme Court, which reviewed the trial's proceedings and the evidence presented.

In its ruling, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, stating, "In sum, we conclude that the RJA does not apply to the exercise of a peremptory challenge of a prospective juror." This decision clarified that challenges to jury selection based on race must meet specific legal standards, which Hazlett's defense failed to demonstrate. Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero authored the opinion, joined by Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, and Fujisaki, while Justices Liu and Evans filed dissenting opinions.

The court's ruling emphasized the importance of DNA evidence in the case, particularly regarding the semen stains found on a bedspread linked to Woolley's murder. The court noted that DNA analysis conducted years after the crime matched Hazlett's DNA profile, establishing a strong connection to the crime scene. The ruling stated, "The DNA from the sperm stains and Larry Hazlett’s DNA, based on [the] comparison, are identical," which played a significant role in affirming the conviction.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases, particularly those involving cold cases where DNA evidence can be pivotal. The decision reinforces the admissibility of DNA evidence in court and highlights the importance of forensic advancements in solving long-standing criminal cases. It also underscores the legal standards required for jury selection and the scrutiny applied to peremptory challenges based on race.

Looking ahead, Hazlett's legal team may explore further options for appeal, although the California Supreme Court's decision is typically final unless new evidence emerges or procedural errors are identified. As of now, there is no indication of related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.