Butler, Quincy Deshan
PD-0129-15
Tex. App.Feb 20, 2015Background
- Butler was charged with deadly conduct by discharging a firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
- The trial court declared a mistrial twice; the State moved to withdraw exhibits for a third trial.
- A third trial resulted in a guilty verdict for deadly conduct with a firearm and a 62-year sentence.
- The 10th Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal; Butler pursued a petition for discretionary review.
- Butler asserts multiple constitutional errors, including indictment defects, evidentiary sufficiency, and trial-court rulings affecting cross-examination and mistrials.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court judgment, denying relief on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment quash deprives right to an impartial trial | Butler | State | No reversal; indictment provided sufficient notice. |
| Due process/equal protection given allegedly insufficient or improperly admitted evidence | Butler | State | Evidence supports conviction; no due process violation found. |
| Appellate mistrial denial violated federal law | Butler | State | No reversible error; the trial court did not abuse discretion on mistrial rulings. |
| Right to cross-examination of key witness was violated | Butler | State | No error; trial court properly limited cross-examination under authorities cited. |
| Admission of extraneous offenses and bad-character evidence violated due process | Butler | State | No reversible error; such evidence properly admitted under standards applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- ALONZO v. STATE, 353 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) (distinguishes culpable mental states; notice and charging concerns)
- ALVARADO v. STATE, 704 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (clarifies culpable states and notice in indictments)
- WILLIS v. STATE, 790 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and notice issues)
- KESTERSON v. TEXAS, 997 S.W.2d 290 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999) (limits on cross-examination; confrontation clause implications)
- CHAMBERS v. MISSISSIPPI, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (confrontation and cross-examination; right to impeach witnesses)
- U.S. v. Diaz, 637 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2011) (confrontation and impeachment frameworks in appeals)
- U.S. v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1977) (perjury and use-immunity considerations in testimony)
- SANCHEZ v. U.S., 961 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1992) (standard for evaluating sufficiency; reasonable doubt framework)