Clark v. State
365 S.W.3d 333
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Clark was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole under Tex. Penal Code § 19.03.
- The victim, Gwen Sneed, died from a gunshot wound in a parking lot in March 2006, along with her unborn baby.
- Clark initially lied about his whereabouts; cell-phone records showed extensive communication with Sneed before her death.
- At trial, Clark testified that Sneed shot herself after grabbing his gun; witnesses questioned the feasibility of suicide given weapon size and trajectory.
- Defense objections during cross-examination—described as sidebar, argumentative, mischaracterization, invading the province of the jury, and badgering—were repeatedly overruled.
- The court of appeals held that Clark waived due to failure to preserve a due-process objection at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the due-process claim preserved on appeal? | Clark argues objections alerted trial court to due-process violation. | State contends objections were evidentiary, not constitutional. | Not preserved; no explicit due-process objection on record. |
| Did the record show a constitutional due-process issue despite trial objections? | Clark asserts context showed repeated constitutional violations. | State contends objections were not clearly constitutional; no notice to court. | No clear constitutional objection; no notice to trial court. |
| Was there prosecutorial misconduct rising to fundamental error? | Clark claims prosecutorial missteps denied fair trial. | State argues cross-examination was proper and not fundamental error. | Prosecutorial conduct did not constitute fundamental error; forfeited for lack of trial objection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zillender v. State, 557 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (objection must be understood to raise the issue; no talismanic words required)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (context of objection and shared understanding key)
- Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009) (objection must inform judge of specific complaint and basis)
- Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (preservation requires specific grounds in objections)
- Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990) (forfeiture when trial objections not properly preserved)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (clarified forfeiture vs. preservation of certain rights)
- Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (trial judge may limit cross-examination to protect fairness)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (limits on cross-examination; due process considerations)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (fundamental error framework for constitutional claims)
- Lopez v. State, 18 S.W.3d 220 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (trial court within discretion on evidentiary questioning)