Brandon Harrison v. State
06-18-00171-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2019Background
- Defendant Brandon Harrison was convicted by a Bowie County jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon; sentenced to 10 years on each count and a $10,000 fine on count one.
- Complainant Kaylie (his ex-wife) alleged Harrison forced her at knifepoint into their bedroom and raped her; Harrison admitted the break-in and holding a knife to her but denied sexual assault.
- Harrison’s trial strategy (in opening, cross-exam, and closing) emphasized fabrication: motive to obtain favorable divorce terms, relationship with boyfriend, mixed/inconclusive DNA, and potential investigatory bias.
- The State sought to introduce extraneous-offense evidence (Donna Duncan, a coworker Harrison allegedly raped while she was his subordinate) to rebut Harrison’s fabrication defense; Harrison had denied that assault as well.
- Trial court admitted the extraneous-offense evidence over Harrison’s objection; differences included no deadly-weapon use in the Duncan incident and some differing conduct details.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the extraneous assault was sufficiently similar and admissible under Rule 404(b) to rebut a fabrication/frame-up defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting Duncan extraneous-offense evidence to rebut fabrication defense | State: Harrison opened the door to 404(b) evidence by arguing fabrication in opening, cross, and closing; extraneous assault rebuts fabrication | Harrison: Extraneous assault dissimilar (no deadly weapon, different conduct/emotional state), so inadmissible propensity evidence | No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible to rebut fabrication because it was sufficiently similar |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion explanation)
- Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (deference to trial court evidentiary choices)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (opening statement can open the door to extraneous-offense evidence)
- Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (general rule excluding extraneous offenses at guilt phase)
- Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (extraneous evidence admissible to rebut defensive theory)
- Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defensive opening statement informs jury of defensive theory)
- Newton v. State, 301 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (similarity required for rebuttal of fabrication; not exacting)
- Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (discusses similarity threshold for extraneous-offense use)