David Dean Harris v. State
14-14-00152-CR
| Tex. | Aug 20, 2015Background
- David Dean Harris was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment. The State had given pretrial notice under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37 of its intent to offer extraneous sexual-offense evidence.
- The trial court held the Section 2-a hearing out of the jury’s presence, heard five witnesses about alleged extraneous incidents, admitted testimony from three witnesses as adequate to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt, and excluded two others.
- The three admitted witnesses testified during the guilt-innocence phase; Harris was found guilty and his motion for new trial was denied.
- On appeal Harris raised three issues: (1) Article 38.37, §2 is unconstitutional under due process; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting three extraneous-offense witnesses (Rule 403 balancing); and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on his motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The court reviewed preservation of error, statutory procedures under Art. 38.37 (including the Section 2-a pretrial hearing and jury instructions), and the sufficiency of affidavits supporting the new-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harris) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Art. 38.37 §2 (Due Process) | §2 allows propensity evidence that renders trial fundamentally unfair and undermines presumption of innocence | §2 is a valid legislative exception to exclusion of extraneous-offense evidence, contains procedural safeguards (Section 2-a hearing, notice, jury instructions) and does not lessen burden of proof | Section 2 is constitutional; no due process violation; overruled |
| Admission of extraneous-offense testimony (Rule 403) | Trial court failed to balance probative value vs. unfair prejudice and erroneously admitted three witnesses | Appellant failed to preserve a Rule 403 objection at trial for those three witnesses | Issue not preserved; appellate review denied; overruled |
| Denial of hearing on motion for new trial (ineffective assistance) | Trial court should have held evidentiary hearing because affidavit and affidavits of others raised reasonable grounds for relief under Strickland | Trial court could decide motion on affidavits and judge’s familiarity with trial allowed resolution without live testimony | No abuse of discretion in denying a hearing; affidavits were conclusory or rebutted by trial counsel’s detailed affidavit; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (statute presumed valid; party challenging constitutionality bears burden)
- Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Jenkins v. State, 993 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999) (special circumstances in child sexual-assault cases can justify admission of extraneous-act evidence)
- Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (sexual-assault cases frequently are he-said/she-said cases lacking corroboration)
- United States v. Mound, 149 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding Fed. R. Evid. 413 against Due Process challenge)
- United States v. Enjady, 134 F.3d 1427 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rule 413 constitutional when coupled with Rule 403 safeguards)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standards for hearing on motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (trial court may rule on motion for new trial based on affidavits; live testimony not always required)