Chamberlain, Anthony, PD-0760-15

Appellant Anthony Chamberlain was convicted by a Dallas County jury of possession with intent to deliver 4–200 grams of a controlled substance; sentence 30 years.
At trial, the State called Amie (Amy) Shuemaker, who repeatedly claimed not to remember events and refused to answer key questions about the origin of a black satchel containing methamphetamine.
The State sought to admit a prior written statement by Shuemaker in which she identified Chamberlain as the source of the drugs and warned she would later deny the statement to protect her children.
Defense objected to admission of the prior inconsistent statement on grounds of foundation, hearsay, relevance, and Rule 403 prejudice; the trial court admitted it.
The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling; Chamberlain petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review arguing the appellate court misapplied Hughes and Rule 403 balancing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Chamberlain)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of prior inconsistent statement	Admission was improper because the State knew (from the written statement) Shuemaker would recant and used impeachment as a subterfuge to admit substantive, otherwise inadmissible evidence; Rule 403 balance favors exclusion	The State argued it did not call Shuemaker primarily to elicit inadmissible testimony and had reason to believe she might testify consistently; the statement was properly used to impeach	Court of Appeals held the trial court did not abuse its discretion admitting the prior inconsistent statement (affirmed)
Whether State’s knowledge of witness’ likely recantation justified exclusion under Hughes	Chamberlain: Hughes requires examining facts known to the State — here the written statement expressly said she would deny it, so the State knew and Rule 403 exclusion was required	State: Relied on prosecutor’s reasonable expectation the witness might testify consistently; one favorable answer weighed against a finding of primary-purpose subterfuge	Court of Appeals accepted State’s position and did not find Hughes violation

Hughes v. State, 4 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discusses limits on using prior inconsistent statements as a subterfuge to introduce substantive evidence and Rule 403 considerations)
Kelly v. State, 60 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (interprets Hughes and emphasizes the State’s knowledge about a witness’s likely testimony when admitting prior inconsistent statements)