Barney Samuel Bradshaw v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4545
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Barney Samuel Bradshaw was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of S.S., a child under 14, and sentenced to 60 years. The State introduced testimony about three extraneous sexual offenses under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37.
- Extraneous acts: (1) B.P. (age 13) testified Bradshaw digitally penetrated her after providing alcohol; (2) A.G. (age 15, Bradshaw’s stepdaughter) testified he forced her to disrobe but did not touch her; (3) K.M. (age 16–17, A.G.’s sister) testified Bradshaw touched her breasts and genital area under clothing.
- Trial court held an Article 38.37 hearing outside the jury and found the B.P. evidence adequate to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt; all three extraneous acts were admitted at trial.
- Grand jury had previously no-billed the aggravated sexual assault allegation concerning B.P.; B.P. and other witnesses did not testify before that grand jury.
- On appeal Bradshaw argued (a) the B.P. evidence was insufficient under art. 38.37 because of the grand jury no-bill, and (b) admission of the extraneous offenses was unfairly prejudicial under Tex. R. Evid. 403. The court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Art. 38.37 of B.P. evidence | State: trial court may admit extraneous-offense evidence if it likely would support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt | Bradshaw: grand jury no-bill shows insufficient evidence, so trial court erred in admitting B.P. evidence | Trial court did not abuse discretion; hearing produced evidence (witnesses, SANE exam, recorded statement) adequate to support finding despite grand jury no-bill |
| Whether grand jury no-bill precludes admission | State: no-bill only reflects grand jury’s view of evidence presented to it and does not preclude admissibility | Bradshaw: no-bill is compelling proof of insufficiency | Court: no-bill is not dispositive; trial court may consider additional evidence and credibility at Article 38.37 hearing |
| Rule 403 balancing for B.P. evidence | State: Article 38.37 permits admission; Rule 403 applies but defense did not object on 403 grounds at trial | Bradshaw: admission was unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded | Issue not preserved as to B.P. because no Rule 403 objection was made at trial; appellate review denied on that ground |
| Rule 403 balancing for A.G. and K.M. evidence | State: evidence probative—context, corroboration, and collective outcry justify admission under Article 38.37 | Bradshaw: testimony was highly prejudicial propensity evidence that should be excluded | Objection was preserved; court reviewed for abuse of discretion and held prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh probative value given context and legislative intent of Article 38.37 |
Key Cases Cited
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court’s ruling on extraneous-offense admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standards for admitting extraneous-offense evidence)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard; ‘zone of reasonable disagreement’)
- Pawlak v. State, 420 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Rule 403 does not permit exclusion merely because evidence is prejudicial)
- Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (grand jury no-bill does not prove defendant did not commit offense)