Frederick O'Neal Scott v. State
13-14-00517-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 17, 2015Background
- Defendant Frederick O'Neal Scott was convicted after a jury trial for injury to a child (Tex. Pen. Code §22.04) and sentenced as a repeat offender; appeal challenges evidentiary rulings.
- Charged conduct arose from Scott spanking a child (A.R.) with a belt after she pinched her sister and drew blood; Scott asserted a justification defense under Tex. Pen. Code §9.61 (parent may use non-deadly force when reasonably necessary to discipline a child).
- Scott sought to admit school disciplinary records and teacher testimony showing A.R. had prior aggressive incidents (stabbing a classmate with a pencil, pinching a student, suspensions, in‑school suspension) and that Scott was aware of those incidents.
- The trial court excluded the proffered school records and related testimony under Tex. R. Evid. 403 (probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice), admitting them only for appellate record.
- The jury was nevertheless charged on the §9.61 justification defense; Scott contends exclusion of the prior‑act evidence prevented the jury from seeing the context needed to evaluate the reasonableness of his belief and force.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scott's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the child’s school misbehavior (records/teacher testimony) under Rule 403 | The school records were more prejudicial than probative or otherwise improper for jury consideration (timeliness/relevance concerns) | The records were highly probative of Scott’s actual knowledge and of the reasonableness of his belief that force was necessary under §9.61; Rule 403 balancing was not performed or supported by the record | Trial court excluded the evidence under Rule 403; Scott argues this exclusion was erroneous and deprived him of due process by preventing presentation of the heart of his justification defense |
| Whether evidence of the child’s prior aggressive acts is admissible to show defendant’s state of mind under self‑defense/justification analogies | Prior acts at school were not sufficiently connected to the charged incident or were unfairly prejudicial | Prior acts were recent, known to Scott, and admissible (under Rule 404(b) principles and self‑defense precedent) to show his reasonableness in disciplining | Scott contends the evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) or generally to show his state of mind and that exclusion was improper |
| Whether exclusion of the evidence amounted to constitutional denial of defendant’s right to present a defense | Exclusion was a discretionary evidentiary ruling | Exclusion effectively prevented the jury from hearing critical contextual evidence and so violated due process and the right to present a meaningful defense (Potier/Wiley standard) | Scott argues the ruling met the Potier/Wiley threshold for constitutional error; he asks for reversal or new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 104 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. App. — Waco 2003) (analogizes §9.61 justification to self‑defense and permits admission of prior misbehavior known to defendant to show reasonableness of belief)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (exclusion of evidence can violate due process when it prevents defendant from presenting a meaningful defense)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (appellate review must assess whether trial court followed required Rule 403 balancing factors)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standard for abuse of discretion review of trial rulings)
- Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses Rule 403 presumption that relevant evidence’s probative value outweighs unfair prejudice)