Cornell Smith Jr v. State, 420 S.W.3d 207

Background

On May 30, 2009, Cornell Smith Jr. (then 16) shot Daniel Sepeda at an apartment complex; Smith was indicted for capital murder but convicted by a jury of the lesser-included offense of murder and sentenced to 40 years.
Key witnesses: Gregory Ramos (11 at the time) gave a recorded police statement; Ned White and Jessica DeLaRosa saw two black males flee the scene; appellant and associates were seen leaving shortly after and appellant later arrived at a hospital claiming he was shot and robbed.
The State played a redacted recording of Ramos’s prior statement at trial; Ramos testified at trial but had incomplete recollection of some details.
The State introduced MySpace messages, testimony from the victim’s mother, evidence of an unadjudicated prior robbery (Glenn Bowie), and voluminous disciplinary/probation/TYC records at punishment.
On appeal, Smith raised six issues challenging voir dire statements about parole eligibility, admission of Ramos’s recorded statement, admission of the victim’s mother’s testimony and MySpace evidence, admission of extraneous-offense evidence, and admission of disciplinary/probation/TYC records at punishment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Voir dire statements about parole eligibility	Statements accurately described parole eligibility for certified juveniles and were proper voir dire explanation of punishment	State misinformed venire by suggesting parole eligibility where he faced life without parole; fundamental error	Overruled — error not preserved; conviction was for murder (lesser offense) and no record showing empaneling of unqualified jurors
Admission of Ramos’s recorded statement (Recorded recollection/hearsay)	Admissible under Tex. R. Evid. 803(5): Ramos had insufficient present recollection and prior statement contradicted defense (rebutted self-defense)	Hearsay, improper bolstering, irrelevant and prejudicial	Overruled — within trial court’s discretion; prerequisites for 803(5) reasonably satisfied and statement was material to impeachment/rebuttal
Admission of victim’s mother testimony & MySpace records (relevance/403)	Mother’s testimony and MySpace posts were relevant (victim context; flight/consciousness of guilt) and not unduly prejudicial	Mother’s testimony was inflammatory and irrelevant; MySpace pages were irrelevant and prejudicial	Overruled — defendant failed to preserve complaints about mother’s testimony; MySpace admission, even if erroneous, was harmless
Admission of extraneous robbery (404(b))	Admissible to rebut defensive theory challenging intent/robbery element and to show intent and modus operandi	Evidence was extraneous, not substantially similar, and the door was not opened	Overruled — trial court could reasonably conclude appellant opened the door by contesting robbery and intent; similarity sufficient for intent purpose
Admission of disciplinary/probation/TYC records at punishment (Confrontation/hearsay)	Records are business records admissible under hearsay exception; calling each witness impractical	Records contained testimonial, non-testimonial, and hearsay statements; admission violated Confrontation Clause	Sustained as to testimonial portions — trial court abused discretion admitting disciplinary/TYC reports; harm on punishment phase shown; new punishment hearing required

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (incarceration incident/disciplinary reports containing testimonial statements are barred by the Confrontation Clause)
Ford v. State, 73 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (sterile disciplinary recitations may be non‑testimonial and admissible as business records)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (harmless-error standard: substantial and injurious effect on verdict required to reverse)
Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (recorded recollection rule prerequisites under Tex. R. Evid. 803(5))
Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (proponent bears burden to establish hearsay exception for recorded recollection)