Dominic Stefan Anderson v. State
04-15-00573-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2016Background
- Victim A.T. and defendant Dominic Stefan Anderson lived together; A.T. testified Anderson assaulted her multiple times (hitting, hair-pulling, pinching breasts) and forced anal sex; photographs and a sexual-assault nurse examiner corroborated serious injuries.
- Anderson testified the sexual activity was consensual, injuries were consensual "rough" sex or hickeys, and claimed A.T. fabricated allegations.
- A.T. signed an affidavit of nonprosecution but later testified she told the investigator she did not want to pursue charges despite the assault having occurred.
- Anderson admitted a 2006 conviction for assault family violence; the State introduced that prior as extraneous-offense evidence.
- A jury convicted Anderson of sexual assault and enhanced assault-family-violence; sentences were 15 years (sexual assault) and 10 years (assault-family-violence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying motion to sever the two offenses | Severance was untimely; no prejudice shown | Motion to sever should be granted to try offenses separately | Denial affirmed: motion was untimely because not raised pretrial |
| Whether defense could cross-examine complainant about felony probation | Cross-examination not permitted absent logical connection to bias | A.T.’s probation could motivate filing nonprosecution affidavit; cross-examination needed to show bias | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to show logical connection between probation and motive to testify falsely |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing defendant’s requested limiting jury instruction about prior conviction | Existing charge paragraph already limited extraneous-offense use for specified purposes | Requested instruction would further limit jury to jurisdictional use only | Denial affirmed: charge already limited use to specified 404(b) purposes including rebuttal of fabrication; surplusary language acceptable |
| Whether prior assault evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) | Prior assault admissible to rebut defendant’s fabrication defense | Prior admissible only for jurisdiction, not other 404(b) purposes | Prior was admissible to rebut defensive theory; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. State, 986 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (motion to sever must be made pretrial to be timely)
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Irby v. State, 327 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (must show logical connection between probationary status and motive/bias to permit cross-examination)
- Bass v. State, 270 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to rebut theory that complainant fabricated allegations)
- Juneau v. State, 49 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) (defendant must show deferred adjudication could influence witness’s version of facts)