Blackshear v. State
342 S.W.3d 777
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Blackshear was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, enhanced by two prior felonies, following an undercover narcotics operation.
- The arrest occurred at a gas station after Officers Castro and Chapman arranged a buy of crack cocaine; a baggie of cocaine was seized from Blackshear.
- Ball testified that he was not involved and that officers had misrepresented the situation; Ball claimed Blackshear was not connected to the transaction and that officers threatened them.
- During trial, Blackshear’s defense objected to Castro’s testimony identifying Blackshear by a street nickname linked to other drug activity, arguing Rule 404(b) and prejudice.
- The trial ended with a guilty verdict; the jury could not reach punishment, resulting in a mistrial; a second jury later sentenced Blackshear to eight years in prison and a $2,500 fine.
- Blackshear appeals, challenging (1) admission of extraneous conduct and (2) denial of a continuance to obtain a transcript from the first trial for use at the second trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of extraneous-conduct testimony was properly preserved as error. | Blackshear | Blackshear says testimony violated Rule 404(b) and should be excluded. | Overruled (no preservation of error). |
| Whether denial of a continuance to obtain a transcript of the first trial requires reversal. | Blackshear | State contends no transcript needed for punishment phase. | Reversible error; remand for new punishment trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971) (transcript essential; factors for need of transcript; burden on State to rebut presumption of need)
- White v. State, 823 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (transcript needed for effective defense; opposing factors for punishment phase)
- Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (presumption of need for transcript; State must rebut)
- Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (transcript denial analyzed in continuance context)
- Denison v. State, 651 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (general preservation of error; lack of specificity)