Akin, William James
PD-1386-15
| Tex. | Nov 10, 2015Background
- Appellant William James Akkin appeals multiple child sexual abuse convictions from the 336th District Court in Fannin County, with related appellate review in the Sixth Court of Appeals in Texarkana.
- The Court of Appeals held that admitting photographs and related images at the guilt/innocence stage was error but harmless, and affirmed the convictions.
- The State timely filed a petition for discretionary review in this Court seeking review of the harm analysis and application of non-constitutional error standards.
- The State contends discretionary review is warranted only for matters of great importance to Texas jurisprudence, not mere error correction.
- Petitioner argues the appellate harm analysis should be revised to a new standard, including a Rule 403-like framework, and shift the burden of proving harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate harm analysis for non-constitutional error is properly applied | Akkin asserts the court should reassess harm beyond Baxter standard | State contends the lower court properly weighed the tainted evidence in context | No new standard adopted; harm analyzed under established law |
| Whether the petition for discretionary review should be granted to modify non-constitutional harm analysis | Akkin seeks a substantive overhaul of how harm is assessed | State argues the petition lacks broader jurisprudential significance | Discretionary review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxter v. State, 66 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (harm in context; non-constitutional error reviewed for possible prejudice)
- Degrate v. State, 712 S.W.2d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (routine error does not warrant discretionary review)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (Rule 403 considerations; testing admissibility factors)
- Russell v. State, 113 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2003) (harm assessed in light of all trial arguments and comments)
- Bradley v. State, 235 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (court as caretaker of law; not an error-correction vehicle)