Hart, Brian
PD-1426-15
| Tex. App. | Nov 5, 2015Background
- Defendant Brian Hart was convicted by a jury of arson after admitting he intentionally set toilet paper on fire in his motel bathroom; he asserted a necessity defense based on post-seizure delusions.
- Hart suffered from seizures and testified he failed to take prescribed anti-seizure medication; experts and first responders corroborated his delusional state.
- During guilt/innocence the State elicited (1) an officer’s testimony recounting Hart’s statement that others knew he was a sex offender and (2) Hart’s prior conviction for failure to register as a sex offender; the defense objected.
- The trial court admitted both items; Hart obtained a running objection and limiting instructions.
- On appeal the Second Court of Appeals held the officer’s recounting was error but harmless because the later admission of the prior conviction (properly admitted for impeachment) rendered the error harmless; the conviction and sentence (3 years) were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior sex-offender conviction for impeachment under Tex. R. Evid. 609 | Probative of credibility, motive, intent, and state of mind; impeachment of Hart’s confession required because his credibility was central | Highly prejudicial; minimal probative value given State largely conceded Hart was delusional; prejudice outweighed probative value under Rule 403/609 | Court of Appeals: admission of the prior failure-to-register conviction was within trial court’s discretion (probative for impeachment) and not an abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of officer’s testimony recounting Hart saying others knew he was a sex offender (relevance) | Relevant to Hart’s stated motive/state of mind for setting fire (he believed attackers knew he was a sex offender) | Irrelevant detail about the imagined attackers’ motive; extremely prejudicial and likely to cause impermissible character inference | Court of Appeals: admission of the officer’s recounting was erroneous but harmless because the later proper admission of the prior conviction proved the same fact |
| Harmless-error analysis for improper admission | Error is harmless if same facts later proved by properly admitted evidence; review whole record for substantial-rights effect | Admission that Hart was a sex offender likely influenced the jury irrationally and affected substantial rights | Court of Appeals: error harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); no substantial and injurious effect on verdict given the record and limiting instructions |
| Whether similarity or age of prior conviction weighed against admission | N/A (State emphasized impeachment value and its non-similarity to arson) | The convictions were old and highly prejudicial (including sexual nature), reducing admissibility | Court applied Theus factors and concluded most factors favored admission (deception element, role of defendant’s credibility), supporting trial court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (standards for admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence and Rule 403 balancing)
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (factors for balancing probative value against unfair prejudice)
- Robles v. State, 85 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (prohibition on convicting for character conformity)
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (nonexclusive factors for Rule 609 impeachment balancing)
- Anderson v. State, 717 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if same facts proven by other admissible evidence)