Heather Lauren Richards v. State
03-15-00316-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Heather Lauren Richards was indicted on multiple felonies (attempted capital murder under kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, tampering with evidence); jury convicted her on all five counts and sentenced her to 50 years on each count.
- At trial three codefendants (some previously convicted/sentenced) testified for the State; the defense contends only one had a court-signed use-immunity order and that two were effectively compelled without proper orders. Codefendants testified in jail clothing.
- The State introduced (over defense objection) a hospital audio recording of the alleged victim (State’s Exhibit 70) and numerous photographs during punishment showing firearms, a Confederate flag, baby items near ammunition, and pornography.
- Trial counsel did not call a potentially exculpatory witness (Amanda Chavira), did not request a continuance or investigator funds to secure her testimony, and failed to verify or otherwise timely prove probation eligibility before the jury. Counsel also reportedly mismanaged files during trial.
- Defense raised four appellate points: (1) due-process/presumption-of-innocence violation from compelled codefendant testimony; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to secure Chavira and for failures related to punishment election and proving probation eligibility; (3) erroneous admission of hospital audio as inadmissible hearsay (not an excited utterance); (4) erroneous admission of irrelevant and highly prejudicial punishment photographs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Richards) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Compelled testimony of codefendants | Forcing three codefendants to testify (two without signed orders) and parading them in jail clothing denied due process and impaired presumption of innocence | State would assert use-immunity orders were effectively in place or that compulsion was lawful and necessary; prior precedent permits compelled testimony with use immunity | Appellant requests reversal on due-process grounds; brief asks appellate court to find error (record does not include appellate decision) |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel was deficient for not securing Amanda Chavira (an available, favorable witness), not seeking continuance/funding, failing to verify probation application, and failing to involve Richards in punishment election; these failures prejudiced outcome | State likely to argue strategic choices or lack of prejudice; counsel provided affidavit explaining choices | Appellant contends Strickland standard met and requests reversal or new punishment hearing; no appellate holding in brief |
| 3. Admission of hospital audio (State’s Ex. 70) | Recording taken ~6 hours after escape was not an excited utterance; large portion was non-testimonial screams and pain that unduly prejudiced jury | State likely to argue victim remained under stress and statements were spontaneous and admissible | Appellant seeks reversal based on non-constitutional error affecting substantial rights; brief urges exclusion |
| 4. Admission of punishment photographs | Photographs taken five days after arrest with no nexus to Richards were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, inflaming jury (Montgomery balancing) | State relied on photos to show character/living environment and argued probative value for punishment | Appellant asks remand on punishment; brief argues Montgomery factors favor exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) (competence standard for counsel)
- Ex Parte Shorthouse, 640 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (Texas discussion of use-immunity in compelled testimony context)
- Coffey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (compelled witnesses granted use immunity must testify)
- Buttefield v. State, 992 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (use immunity and perjury prosecution of compelled witness)
- McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factors for excited-utterance hearsay exception)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (balancing test for admitting inflammatory evidence at punishment)
- Paris v. State, 35 Tex.Crim. 82 (1885) (due-process importance of evidentiary rules in criminal trials)