Broderick Jermaine Grba v. State
10-14-00198-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Broderick Jermaine Grba was tried on consolidated indictments: murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and burglary (to which he pled guilty). Jury convicted; sentences: life + $10,000 for murder; 20 years + $10,000 for each other count.
- Facts: a nighttime confrontation in an apartment complex culminated in multiple gunshots; Marcus Carroll (victim) was killed by a .380 stolen earlier from Carroll’s apartment; Antwon Heslip was seriously wounded; Grba was present with Anthony Allen and later admitted firing a .380 after saying Carroll fired first.
- Grba gave recorded statements claiming he fired out of fear after Carroll shot Allen; he also admitted participating in the prior burglary that supplied the .380.
- At punishment, the State offered extraneous-offense evidence that Grba had allegedly committed kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault in 2007; the alleged victim did not testify but a sheriff’s investigator related her statements.
- Trial court refused Grba’s requested “sudden passion” instruction at punishment and admitted the extraneous-offense evidence; defense counsel did not object to the investigator’s hearsay testimony.
- Grba appealed raising: (1) trial court erred by denying a sudden passion instruction at punishment; (2) admission of extraneous-offense evidence was improper because it did not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay at punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to submit a "sudden passion" instruction at punishment | Grba: his recorded statements that Carroll shot first and that he fired out of fear raised sudden-passion at punishment | State: evidence did not show terror rising to sudden passion; jury already rejected self-defense so unlikely to accept sudden passion | Overruled. Court found any error harmless under Almanza; jury disbelieved self-defense so unlikely it would have found sudden passion. |
| Whether admission of 2007 extraneous kidnapping/sexual-assault evidence was improper because proof did not meet beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard | Grba: evidence insufficient for court to find extraneous offenses proven beyond a reasonable doubt | State: trial court has broad discretion under art. 37.07; objections at trial did not raise this specific beyond-a-reasonable-doubt complaint | Overruled as unpreserved. Appellate complaint did not comport with the objections made at trial, so no review. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay (investigator recounting alleged victim’s statements) during punishment | Grba: counsel’s failure to object to hearsay denied effective assistance and prejudiced punishment | State: record is silent on counsel’s strategy; Grba didn’t raise this in a motion for new trial so counsel had no opportunity to explain; must overcome strong presumption of reasonable representation | Overruled. Court declines ineffective-assistance claim because record offers no basis to show counsel’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (explains sudden-passion burden, punishment-phase instruction standards, and harm analysis when jury rejected self-defense)
- Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (explains reasonable-doubt standard for admitting extraneous-offense evidence at punishment)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (sets two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)