Alester D. Hogan v. State
440 S.W.3d 211
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Hogan was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 30 years' confinement in Harris County, Texas.
- The complainant was 19 years old and described as moderately mentally retarded; DNA evidence linked Hogan to the offense.
- Complainant testified she was forced into Hogan's truck, taken to his house, and sexually assaulted; she later reported to a neighbor and police.
- The trial court conducted a competency hearing and ultimately found complainant competent to testify; defense challenged competency.
- On appeal, Hogan challenging both the competency ruling and the jury-parole instruction error; the court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency of the witness | Hogan contends complainant was not competent to testify. | State contends the court did not abuse its discretion; she was competent. | No abuse; complainant competent to testify. |
| Jury charge error on parole eligibility | Hogan argues the parole instruction was incorrect and prejudicial. | State argues error was not egregiously harmful and curative language mitigated harm. | Charge error did not amount to egregious harm; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 772 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (standard for reviewing trial court competency determinations)
- Beavers v. State, 634 S.W.2d 893 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982) (witness credibility vs. competency distinction)
- Watson v. State, 596 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (test for understanding truth and lies; competency inquiry)
- Allen v. State, 479 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (competency unaffected by inconsistent testimony; credibility affects weight)
- Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (example of competent testimony despite language or education barriers)
- Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (parole description curative language and harm considerations)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis framework for trial error)
- Rolle v. State, 367 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (egregious harm standard in Almanza-based review)
- Warner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (harm assessment in non-objecting defendants)