Barshaw v. State
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 914
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Barshaw was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment.
- The court allowed an expert to testify that a class the victim belongs to (mentally retarded individuals) tends to be truthful.
- The Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony and that the error was harmful.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to determine if the appeals court erred by reviewing only part of the record and by substituting its credibility judgment for the fact finder.
- The Court reverses the court of appeals and remands for a full harm analysis based on the entire record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of class-based truthfulness testimony | Barshaw: testimony improperly suggests a class is generally truthful. | State: such testimony is admissible as expert opinion under Rule 702. | Erroneous for trial court to admit the testimony |
| whether the error was harmless | Barshaw: error had substantial impact on credibility assessment. | State: remaining evidence could sustain verdict without that testimony. | Not conclusively harmless; requires full harm analysis |
| appropriate scope of harm analysis | Barshaw: appeals court failed to assess harm in light of the entire record. | State: harm can be evaluated with existing record considerations. | Remanded for full harm analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (guides harm analysis for improper expert testimony)
- Barshaw v. State, 320 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (abuse of discretion in admitting expert testimony; harm analysis)
- Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harmlessness standard for non-constitutional error)
- Haley v. State, 173 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (details considerations for evaluating error impact)
- O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (federal grave doubt standard for harmless error)
- Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (jury credibility assessments and harmless error framework)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (proper scope of appellate review in credibility-related errors)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (comprehensive harm-review framework)
- Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (grave doubt standard and applicability to non-constitutional errors)