Duke v. State
365 S.W.3d 722
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Duke was convicted of indecency with a child and sentenced to sixty years.
- The case is a classic he-said, she-said scenario involving S.S. and a multi-year custody dispute.
- S.S. gave varying statements and recanted after trial, creating credibility concerns.
- Duke challenged cross-examination limits and the exclusion of two SAPCR affidavits.
- The appeal also addressed jury instruction, mistrial, and new-trial issues in light of recantation.
- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no reversible error and sufficient evidence supported conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of cross-examination error | Duke argues Rule 613 allows bias evidence via extrinsic affidavits. | State contends no preserved Rule 613 objection; limitations were proper. | No preserved error; limitations upheld. |
| Need for no-adverse-inference instruction | Almanza error if instruction required despite no request. | No instruction needed absent timely request; not error. | Not error; Almanza analysis not reached. |
| Mistrial required due to alternate juror in deliberations | Presence violated Article 36.22, requiring mistrial. | Record shows no prejudice; State rebutted presumption of harm. | No mistrial required. |
| No new trial despite recantation | Recantation constitutes new evidence warranting new trial. | Recantation not credible; remains sufficent evidence of guilt. | Keeter framework applied; recantation not probable true; no new trial. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | S.S. alone provided sufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Inconsistencies and incentives to lie undercut credibility. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction; single-witness sufficiency affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schutz v. State, 957 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (bias/interest/extrinsic evidence ruling for manipulation/non-credibility context)
- Billodeau v. State, 277 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (Rule 613 exception allowing extrinsic evidence for bias)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (standard for harmless-error review in Almanza)
- Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (no-adverse-inference instruction must be requested)
- Michaelwicz v. State, 186 S.W.3d 601 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (no-adverse-inference instruction absence not error without request)
- Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (presumption of injury for Article 36.22 violation; appellate review)
- Keeter v. State, 74 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (new-trial standard based on recantation evidence)
- Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (no-evidence standard discussion cited by court)
- Scott v. State, 202 S.W.3d 405 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006) (single-witness testimony sufficiency allowed in proper circumstances)
- Trinidad v. State, 312 S.W.3d 23 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (issue preservation when trial-knowledge of violation of Article 36.22)