Dabney v. State
2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 91
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Ronnie Leon Dabney was convicted by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine and sentenced to 30 years; the State introduced evidence of a 2004 incident where an active meth lab was found on Dabney’s property.
- Before trial Dabney requested Rule 404(b) notice; the State gave notice of several prior convictions but did not specifically disclose the 2004 meth-lab incident as 404(b) evidence in the State’s case-in-chief.
- In voir dire and opening statement defense counsel advanced a defensive theory that Dabney was an innocent victim of circumstance—he did not know a meth lab was on his property.
- The State sought to admit testimony about the 2004 meth-lab event to rebut that defensive theory (invoking the “doctrine of chances”); the trial court admitted the evidence and instructed the jury to consider it only to rebut mistake/accident.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the State abused discretion by failing to give 404(b) notice for the extraneous manufacturing evidence; the State sought review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court, holding that when a defendant opens the door in voir dire/opening to a defensive theory, rebuttal extraneous-offense evidence is not subject to the Rule 404(b) pretrial-notice requirement absent evidence of a willful discovery violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dabney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 404(b) notice is required for extraneous-offense evidence offered in the State’s case-in-chief to rebut a defensive theory raised in voir dire/opening | Notice is not required for rebuttal evidence because the defense’s opening statement created a defensive theory the State could rebut in its case-in-chief; requiring pretrial notice would force the State to anticipate every possible defense. | Dabney contends his general denial did not open the door to extraneous-offense evidence and the State was required to provide 404(b) notice; the 2004 manufacturing details were not covered by the State’s Rule 609 notice. | The Court held defense opened the door by advancing mistake/accident theory; rebuttal extraneous-offense evidence presented in the State’s case-in-chief need not be disclosed under Rule 404(b). |
| Whether admission was an abuse of discretion because the prosecutor willfully violated discovery or engaged in trial ambush | The trial judge was in the best position; no record evidence shows willful conduct to circumvent discovery—admission was proper and probative under the doctrine of chances. | Dabney argued the failure to disclose was willful and details of the 2004 incident went beyond what notice permitted, making admission prejudicial. | The Court found Oprean (willful suppression) distinguishable and held no evidence of willful discovery violation here; appellate court should have deferred to trial court’s reasonable ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (trial court discretion in admitting extraneous-offense evidence to rebut defensive theory)
- Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (defense opening statement can open the door to extraneous-offense rebuttal in State’s case-in-chief)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (application of the doctrine of chances to admit extraneous-offense evidence to rebut claim of innocent intent)
- Oprean v. State, 201 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (admission reversed where prosecutor willfully failed to comply with discovery order and introduced undisclosed evidence)