Billy Ray Henderson v. the State of Texas
11-19-00320-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 2, 2021Background
- Appellant Billy Ray Henderson was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (4–200 grams), pleaded true to two prior felonies, and received a 99-year sentence.
- Police officer Nichols saw Henderson drop a clear baggie, retrieve it, and then toss it; lab testing later confirmed methamphetamine.
- The State introduced a certificate of analysis with the lab report; the certificate named ANAB as the accrediting board but did not include the phrase “that accredits crime laboratories.”
- Henderson objected at trial on the grounds of noncompliance with subsection 3(4) of Art. 38.41 and on Confrontation Clause grounds, but did not object pretrial under Art. 38.41 §4 or specifically cite subsection 3(2) then.
- During closing, defense counsel attempted to argue (and show an excerpt of body‑cam video) that the officer’s pickup had an in‑vehicle camera; the court excluded argument implying existence/functionality of a working in‑vehicle system because that evidence was not in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether certificate of analysis complied with Art. 38.41 §3(2) | Certificate substantially (and at least verbatim to the §5 form) complied; omission of the words “that accredits crime laboratories” is not fatal | Certificate defective for failing to state the accrediting board “accredits crime laboratories” | Not preserved on appeal; in any event certificate met §3 requirements (substantial/strict compliance). Issue overruled |
| 2. Whether admission of certificate violated the Confrontation Clause | No timely pretrial objection under Art. 38.41 §4; Confrontation objection waived where certificate substantially complies | Admission violated Confrontation Clause (asserted at trial, not pretrial) | Waived for failure to file timely written objection; overruled |
| 3. Whether court abused discretion by prohibiting counsel’s closing argument about in‑vehicle camera | Argument would introduce facts outside the record, invite speculation about functionality/withholding, and thus was properly excluded | Defense needed to show officer was mistaken/lying; exclusion impaired effective advocacy | No abuse of discretion; even if error, harmless because gravamen of defense was conveyed and jury could review admitted video |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation requirement for evidentiary objections)
- Cohn v. State, 849 S.W.2d 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (objection must inform trial court of basis for exclusion)
- Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (objections need not use magic words but must be sufficiently clear)
- Williams v. State, 585 S.W.3d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019) (Art. 38.41 §4 timeliness and interplay with Confrontation Clause)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for limiting closing argument)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (permissible categories of jury argument)
- Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (closing argument cannot be used to introduce facts outside the record)
- Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (harmless‑error framework—reasonable possibility standard)