Darion Deandre Lane v. State
02-17-00048-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- On December 10, 2015, police responded to a domestic-violence 9-1-1 call; victim had visible injuries and reported being kicked, punched, choked, and that Lane was armed and in the apartment with their child. Lane was arrested.
- Lane was tried and convicted by a jury of two counts: (1) assault by impeding breathing/circulation with a prior family-violence conviction, and (2) assault of a family/household member with a prior conviction.
- At trial the court admitted extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 38.371: 9-1-1 recordings from other incidents, a photograph of injuries from a later assault, and Lane’s prior conviction involving the same victim. The State offered these over hearsay, confrontation, relevancy, and due-process objections.
- Lane objected at pretrial and during trial on confrontation, hearsay, relevancy, and due-process grounds, arguing the statute’s application here violated his rights; he later moved for mistrial, renewing those objections.
- On appeal Lane raised only a facial challenge to § 38.371 (arguing it is facially unconstitutional). The Court of Appeals found the complaint at trial was only an as-applied challenge and that Lane failed to preserve a facial challenge for appeal.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences (15 and 10 years) because Lane did not present a facial challenge in the trial court and thus forfeited the issue on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 38.371 is facially unconstitutional | Lane: § 38.371 is facially unconstitutional (violates due process) | State: § 38.371 valid and any challenge was only as-applied; evidence admissible under statute | Court: Not preserved — Lane raised only an as-applied challenge at trial, so facial challenge forfeited; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (distinguishes facial v. as-applied challenges)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (facial challenge preservation rules; contrast with as-applied)
- Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellant must comport appellate complaint with trial court objection)
- Lovill v. State, 319 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation of constitutional complaint requires proper trial objection)
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing courts should not reach unpreserved issues)
- State v. Rosseau, 398 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (distinguishing as-applied vs. facial challenges)