Drew Ryser v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12711
Tex. App.2014Background
- HPD officer Drew Ryser supervised a group arrest of burglary suspects including a 15-year-old Holley after a pursuit deteriorated into forceful takedown.
- Video footage showed Holley on the ground surrounded by officers who kicked and stomped him while Ryser knee-struck him four times; Holley was later handcuffed.
- An internal HPD investigation followed, and Ryser was terminated and charged with official oppression; the trial court sentenced him to six months but suspended it and placed him on two years’ community supervision.
- The videotape was leaked by Quanell X and publicized by city officials at a press conference, generating extensive pretrial and mid-trial publicity and a joint venue hearing.
- Ryser sought a change of venue due to publicity; the trial court denied, and Ryser was tried in Houston with the video admitted at trial.
- At trial, Ryser admitted striking Holley but claimed he used necessary force to gain compliance; the State argued the force exceeded what was reasonable and unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there legally sufficient evidence of unlawful mistreatment? | Ryser contends insufficient evidence to prove unlawful mistreatment. | State argues video and testimony show unlawful excessive force; knowledge of unlawfulness can be inferred. | Yes; legally sufficient evidence supports unlawful mistreatment. |
| Did the trial court err in the jury charge on law of parties and self-defense? | Ryser claims improper self-defense instruction and improper party theory submission. | State contends both instructions were warranted by evidence and required to fully instruct the law. | No; instructions were proper and within discretion. |
| Was the denial of the change-of-venue motion within the trial court’s discretion given publicity? | Ryser asserts pervasive publicity and influential officials tainted voir dire; venue should have changed. | State asserts publicity was not pervasive/inflammatory and the county is large and diverse. | Yes; denial was within the zone of reasonable disagreement. |
| Did the sleeping juror require reversal or mistrial? | Ryser argues due-process was violated by a sleeping juror; mistrial should have been granted. | State contends juror credibility was assessed, no abuse of discretion. | No; trial court acted within its discretion. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on juror misconduct involving dictionary definitions? | Ryser asserts outside influence by dictionary usage affected deliberations warranting new trial. | State argues use of dictionary definitions did not prejudice and was harmless given proper elements. | No; denial of new trial was not abuses; any error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson sufficiency framework in Texas context)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (Almanza harm standards for preserved vs. unpreserved trial errors)
- Goff v. State, 931 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (evidence supporting law-of-parties instructions; pre/post crime evidence considered)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (juror credibility and harm standard in jury-charge analysis)
- Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (implicit finding when rejecting justification defenses in verdicts)
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (outside influence and Rule 606(b) testimony scope clarified)
- Daugherty v. State, 176 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. Crim. App. 1943) (police use of force limits in self-defense contexts)
- Assiter v. State, 58 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (burden of proof on justification defenses under §2.03)