Amanda Darlene Pixley v. State
09-15-00522-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Amanda Pixley pleaded no contest to three counts of sexual assault of a minor and elected a bench punishment hearing; the court sentenced her to 20 years per count, to run consecutively.
- In 2010 Pixley had custody of two half-sisters; one child (K.P.) died from blunt head trauma and injuries the medical examiner ruled a homicide. Pixley was investigated and "seen as responsible" but was not charged for K.P.’s death.
- The State gave pretrial notice it would offer evidence of uncharged extraneous offenses: alleged injury/endangerment to K.P.; a PSI referenced Pixley’s connection to that investigation.
- At the punishment hearing the State presented extensive medical and investigative testimony describing K.P.’s injuries, timeline showing Pixley had primary custody when the acute injuries occurred, and testimony that Pixley acknowledged K.P. died from a head injury and did not deny responsibility.
- Pixley appealed, raising two issues: (1) admission of extraneous-offense evidence at punishment without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed those offenses; and (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pixley) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged extraneous-offense evidence at punishment | Admission was improper because State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt Pixley committed the uncharged injuries causing K.P.’s death | Article 37.07 and PSI content allow broad punishment evidence; state presented testimony and timeline sufficient to prove responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible and sufficient to find responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutorial misconduct: argument about why State did not charge Pixley for K.P.’s death | Prosecutor improperly argued reasons for not pursuing murder charges without testifying | Closing argument summarized and reasonably inferred from investigator testimony and answered defense argument; permissible | Not improper; within permissible areas of summation and rebuttal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct: argument that sexual assaults harmed victim | State improperly argued the assaults traumatized T.D. | State responded to defense implication minimizing victim impact; argument based on record | No objection at trial; complaint not preserved on appeal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct: remarks about Pixley’s pregnancies while on bond | State improperly suggested punishment for pregnancies or sympathy ploy; inflammatory statements | Defense made limited objections; many statements went unobjected and were fair response to evidence and argument | Most complaints not preserved; no structural error; overall not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 227 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court may consider PSI extraneous-misconduct content if some evidence supports a rational inference of defendant's responsibility)
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Gaddis v. State, 753 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (scope and purpose of closing argument — assimilate evidence to help factfinder)
- Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation required for appellate review of non-structural errors)
- Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (complaint on appeal must comport with trial objection to be preserved)