Harris, James Jr.
AP-77,029
Tex. App.Aug 4, 2015Background
- Appellant James Harris Jr. pleaded guilty to capital murder for stabbing elderly victims Darla and Alton Wilcox during a burglary/robbery; jury assessed punishment.
- Trial evidence showed extensive stabbing injuries to both victims with money and car taken; DNA and other physical evidence connected Harris to the crime.
- The State presented eyewitness, autopsy, DNA, and forensic testimony; Harris had prior probation and various prior offenses.
- Defense presented character witnesses and neuropsychological/toxic-exposure theories; defense argued mitigation based on mental impairment.
- The punishment phase resulted in the death sentence after evidence of future dangerousness and limited mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment of expert testimony admissibility | Harris argues Singer’s impeachment was improper | State contends gatekeeping does not bar credibility testing | Proper impeachment; harmless if any error |
| Guilty-plea competency language in punishment charge | Charge comments on guilt/innocence; improper | Language necessary to reflect Article 26.13/36.14 compliance | Language proper; harmless |
| For-cause challenges to venireperson Woods | Court erred in denying for-cause strike | Woods vacillated but could follow law | No abuse of discretion; Woods not shown bias |
| For-cause challenges to venireperson Cooper | Cooper biased toward death; should be struck | Cooper vacillated; could follow law | No abuse of discretion; Cooper open to mitigating evidence and law |
| For-cause challenges to venireperson Vanscoy | Vanscoy biased toward automatic death | Record shows confusion, not bias | No abuse of discretion; Vanscoy not shown substantial impairment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to trial court on venire bias; vacillating responses)
- Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (bias and due process in voir dire; burden on proponent)
- Barajas v. State, 93 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (limits on voir dire; improper commitment questions)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for bias and deference to trial court on voir dire)
- Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (harmless error analysis for mild charge defects)
- Remsburg v. State, 219 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2007) (harmlessness of non-structural trial errors)