Cochran, Mitchell Dean
PD-0793-15
Tex. App.—WacoAug 17, 2015Background
- Cochran was indicted on five counts of sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child by contact; jurors convicted him on all counts and the trial court imposed twelve-year terms on each, with some consecutive and others concurrent.
- A CPS report is repeatedly referenced during trial and contains statements allegedly by the victim, her mother, and others about home problems and boys in the house.
- Defense attempted to impeach key witnesses with the CPS report; the trial court barred cross-examination and admission of the CPS statements for impeachment.
- CPS supervisor testified that the CPS caseworker who drafted the report had reliability concerns and was terminated for falsification of documentation.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the CPS document was not authenticated and thus not admissible for impeachment under Rule 104; Cochran seeks discretionary review claiming error in cross-examination limits and use of the CPS report.
- The procedural posture includes a 2013 jury verdict, a 2015 unpublished Waco Court of Appeals memorandum, and this petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by limiting impeachment and cross-examination regarding the CPS report. | Cochran argues the CPS report contained admissible prior inconsistent statements; withholding impeachment violated confrontation and Rule 611/612/613. | State contends the CPS statements were unauthenticated and thus not admissible for impeachment; cross-examination limits were within trial court discretion. | Issue overruled; trial court acted within discretion; CPS statements not authenticated and not admissible for impeachment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (right to cross-examination safeguards credibility testing of witnesses)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (confrontation includes cross-examination as essential safeguard)
- Gaskin v. State, 353 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962) (Gaskin Rule prior statements for cross-examination; superseded by Rule 612)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication gatekeeping under Rule 104(a))
- Robinson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (use of statements for impeachment; cross-examination relevance)