Heather Lauren Richards v. State
03-15-00316-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Richards was convicted by a jury of attempted capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and tampering with physical evidence; sentences ran concurrently (50 years for each major offense; 10 years for tampering).
- Victim Dana Huth was assaulted at a house by Richards and others: forced naked, cut and stabbed, stunned, gagged, blindfolded, bound, placed in a shed; Huth escaped and survived; some victims/witnesses found burned items in a pit.
- At trial the State presented the victim, eyewitnesses (including three codefendants), a videotaped confession by Richards, hospital audio recording, and recorded jail calls in which Richards admitted violent conduct.
- Richards challenged: (1) trial court’s order compelling three codefendants to testify (use immunity signed for only one), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to call a witness, punishment-election counsel conduct, probation paperwork), (3) admission of a hospital audio recording (State’s Exhibit 70), and (4) admission of post-arrest photographs of Richards’s home in punishment phase.
- The court assumed, without deciding, some of the challenged rulings might be error but found any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt (including Richards’s confession and incriminating jail calls), and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelled testimony of codefendants | Trial court ordered three codefendants to testify; only one had a signed use-immunity order; Richards: due-process/presumption-of-innocence violation | State: complaint not preserved; no authority showing use-immunity admission violated rights; even if error, not harmful | Even assuming constitutional error, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence; point overruled |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call Amanda Chavira | Counsel failed to call key witness who would paint Lardieri as main aggressor and reduce Richards’s culpability | State: Richards failed to show what Chavira would have testified to or resulting prejudice; overwhelming evidence negates prejudice | No prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance — punishment election & probation paperwork | Counsel did not discuss punishment election; form lacked Richards’s signature; counsel failed to verify probation paperwork | Trial judge, prosecutor, and defense resolved jury-punishment election; counsel averred he discussed options; solution for probation paperwork admitted application into evidence; no evidence of prejudice | No deficient performance shown or no resulting prejudice; claim fails |
| Evidentiary rulings — State’s Exhibit 70 (hospital audio) | Recording inadmissible hearsay; prejudicial | State: admissible as excited utterance; even if error, harmless given other evidence | Assuming error, admission was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); point overruled |
| Evidentiary rulings — Photographs of home in punishment phase | Photographs irrelevant and unduly prejudicial (firearms/ammo/porn near children’s items) | State: probative to punishment; other severe evidence of offense and unremorseful jail calls supported punishment | Assuming error, admission did not affect substantial rights given graphic offense evidence and jail calls; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 301 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (Ineffective-assistance standard discussion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Ex parte Ramirez, 280 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (ineffective-assistance framework)
- Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (harmless error/substantial-rights standard)
- Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (harmless-evidence review for erroneous admission)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (overwhelming evidence can render evidentiary error harmless)
- Jessop v. State, 368 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility)
- Sneed v. State, 406 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2013) (punishment-election form need not be signed by defendant)