Bobbie Dewayne Grubbs v. State
12-14-00210-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 3, 2015Background
- Defendant Bobbie Grubbs was tried for capital murder and two aggravated assaults arising from shootings at the Joaquin Country Inn (April 27, 2012); jury convicted and sentenced to life (capital without parole + two life sentences).
- Grubbs conceded he fired the shots but defended on grounds of psychosis caused by involuntary, unwitting ingestion of a bath-salt product called “Pump‑It Powder.”
- Expert testimony (Dr. Gripon) and witness statements supported that Grubbs ingested bath salts and experienced transient psychosis; defense sought an involuntary‑intoxication theory.
- At trial the State inadvertently played an unredacted DVD of Grubbs’ statement to Detective Echols that included a line referencing prior incarceration; the court replaced the DVD but denied defense requests to exclude the statement, strike what jurors had heard, give a curative instruction, or declare a mistrial.
- Grubbs moved pretrial to suppress statements to Detective Echols and DPS Trooper Barnes (arguing involuntariness given his mental state, lack of sleep, surroundings, and pressures); the trial court denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grubbs) | Held (trial court rulings described in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to grant mistrial / exclude evidence after inadvertent playback of unredacted DVD | Playback was inadvertent; replacing the DVD cured error | Playback exposed jurors to an inadmissible admission (extraneous‑offense/allusion to prior incarceration) and irreparably prejudiced defense; at minimum curative instruction or exclusion required | Trial court denied motions to exclude, strike, give curative instruction, and denied mistrial |
| 2. Omission of involuntary‑intoxication jury instruction | Jury was instructed on insanity and voluntary intoxication; involuntary intoxication instruction unnecessary | Evidence (bath salts ingestion, expert testimony, eyewitness accounts) entitled Grubbs to an involuntary‑intoxication instruction under Torres | Trial court did not give an involuntary‑intoxication instruction; only voluntary intoxication and insanity were charged |
| 3. Denial of suppression of statements to Detective Echols | Statements were voluntary; no coercion shown sufficient for suppression | Totality of circumstances (recent psychosis from bath salts, exhaustion, confined interrogation, emotional pressure re: children/wife) rendered statements involuntary under Art. 38.22 / Oursbourn factors | Trial court denied suppression; statements admitted (redacted DVD was introduced) |
| 4. Denial of suppression of statements to Trooper Barnes during arrest/transport | Statements were not the product of coercion; lawful custodial interactions | Arrest scene chaos, heavy police presence, lack of Miranda waiver, Grubbs’ impaired state (psychosis, sleeplessness), and covert recording undermined voluntariness | Trial court denied suppression; statements (redacted video) were admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (totality‑of‑circumstances voluntariness / harmless‑error framework)
- Brazzell v. State, 481 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (remedies for violation of limine or trial‑court pretrial orders lie with trial court)
- City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (involuntary intoxication can be a defense where accused exercised no independent volition in taking intoxicant and, as a result, did not know conduct was wrong)
- Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (Article 38.22 voluntariness analysis considers defendant’s state of mind and totality of circumstances)
- Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for denial of mistrial: abuse of discretion within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (trial court suppression rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (reversal for erroneous evidentiary rulings requires showing error probably caused rendition of improper judgment)