Clinton Ray Sanders v. State
422 S.W.3d 809
Tex. App.2014Background
- Sanders, dating Krystle, assaulted her during a drive after drinking at a bar; Krystle suffered swelling and bruising to her eye and blood stains appeared in the car.
- A grand jury indicted Sanders for assault and alleged prior family-violence convictions; Sanders was convicted and punished with ten years' confinement.
- During punishment, Sanders’ daughter testified; the State introduced a 1998 written statement by the daughter alleging sexual contact by Sanders, which she later recanted.
- The trial court admitted the statement under Article 37.07, §3(a)(1), balancing probative value against unfair prejudice; Sanders objected to lack of notice and prejudice.
- During guilt phase, the State sought to admit Exhibit 31, recordings of a hospital worker and a 911 operator describing Krystle’s injury; Sanders objected to hearsay and confrontation.
- The court admitted Exhibit 31; the appellate court applied a harm analysis, finding any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given corroborating testimony and physical evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of extraneous offense in punishment | Sanders contends the 1998 statement was improper under 37.07 and Rule 403 due to prejudice. | Sanders argues the court abused its discretion by admitting highly prejudicial, unrebutted recantation evidence. | No abuse; evidence appropriately weighed under 37.07 and 403 for sentencing. |
| Admission of 911/hospital recording | Dotti’s statements were testimonial and violated confrontation; their admission was reversible error. | Exhibit 31 was non-testimonial or harmless; other evidence supports conviction and punishment. | Harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversible confrontation violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erazo v. State, 144 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (governs admissibility of punishment-phase evidence under Article 37.07)
- Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (definition of relevance to punishment and sentencing)
- McClure v. State, 269 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (extraneous-offense evidence relevant to punishment)
- Rogers v. State, 991 S.W.2d 263 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Rule 403 balancing and prejudice considerations)
- Davis v. State, 268 S.W.3d 683 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (harmless-error framework for hearsay/confrontation issues)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (courts may consider probative value and potential weight of evidence)