Charles Ray Owens, Jr. v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6989
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- DPS Trooper stopped Charles Ray Owens for speeding and discovered an outstanding Michigan arrest warrant; Owens had a child passenger, so trooper let him drive home to drop off the child before arrest.
- After the child exited, Owens sped away; trooper pursued; Owens’ truck later collided with another vehicle killing Bobby Smith.
- Owens was charged with felony murder and claimed incompetency to stand trial based on a period of amnesia surrounding the incident.
- The trial court appointed Dr. Thomas Allen to examine Owens; Allen (a licensed psychologist) testified the defendant was competent, but Allen did not meet the statutory training/certification requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 46B.022.
- Owens objected to Allen’s qualifications at trial; the court admitted Allen’s testimony, the jury rejected Owens’ incompetency claim, Owens was tried, convicted of felony murder, and sentenced to 40 years.
- On appeal the court reversed: it found Allen lacked the statutorily required qualifications, his testimony was the sole evidence refuting incompetency, and admission of his testimony was harmful error; the conviction was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Owens' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by denying motion to quash indictment (preservation) | Oral motion to quash on eve of trial preserved error | Motion to set aside must be written under art. 27.10; oral motion preserves nothing | Not preserved for review (point rejected) |
| Admissibility of Dr. Allen’s competency testimony — did Allen meet statutory expert qualifications? | Allen lacked required board certification or recent forensic training, so his testimony was inadmissible | Error invited by defense; even if deficient, consider all circumstances and other evidence of competence | Court held Allen did not meet statutory qualifications, his testimony was improperly admitted and harmful; reversal required |
| Alleged fatal variance between charge and evidence | (Raised on appeal but not reached if indictment problem found) | Not addressed in detail by State on appeal | Not reached as reversal on competency issue rendered it moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (doctrine that a party cannot complain on appeal of an error it induced)
- Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (party who affirmatively seeks action cannot later claim it was error)
- Von Byrd v. State, 569 S.W.2d 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (court may examine all circumstances in assessing expert appointment issues)
- Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (oral motions to quash indictments preserve nothing for review)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial judge’s gatekeeping role on expert admissibility)