Elijah Decole Woods v. State
06-16-00227-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Police detectives recruited confidential informant Lamont Young to make a controlled buy in Paris, Texas, supplying him a vehicle, $800 (serial-numbered photocopy), and a buttonhole camera.
- Young was directed to buy crack from a different target; that person refused and Elijah Decole Woods approached Young and completed a transaction.
- The buttonhole-camera video and still frames, Young’s live narration, returned cash ($580), and loose crack cocaine found in the vehicle were presented at trial.
- Woods was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and appealed, arguing insufficient corroboration of the informant’s testimony and erroneous admission of expert testimony by Police Captain Tommy Moore.
- The court reviewed whether non-informant evidence tended to connect Woods to the offense and whether Woods preserved his objection to Moore’s expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for informant testimony | Young’s testimony was uncorroborated and insufficient to support conviction | Video, returned cash, recovered drugs, and location tend to connect Woods to the sale even excluding Young’s testimony | Affirmed: non-informant evidence (video/stills, cash-count, recovered drugs, location) tends to connect Woods to the offense |
| Admission of expert testimony (Moore) | Moore lacked proper expert predicate; testimony improperly offered legal conclusions and reduced State’s burden | Objection at trial was a general Daubert-style objection without specifics; trial court overruled and Woods did not further specify | Affirmed: Woods failed to preserve complaint by not stating specific grounds; appellate argument does not comport with trial objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (corroboration must tend to connect accused to offense; exclude informant testimony when assessing corroboration)
- Cook v. State, 460 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015) (video footage can corroborate informant testimony)
- Cantelon v. State, 85 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (still photographs from surveillance may be used as corroboration)
- Scherl v. State, 7 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999) (unspecific objections to expert predicate fail to preserve error)
- Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (objection must inform trial judge clearly what is sought and why)
- Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (three areas to attack expert testimony: qualification, reliability, relevance)
- Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (trial court gatekeeping duties for expert testimony)
- Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (broad Daubert objection insufficient to preserve appellate claim on expert reliability)
- Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (appellate points must comport with trial objections)