Hucks v. State
348 S.W.3d 359
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Hucks convicted of sexual assault of a child; sentenced to 20 years' confinement and $10,000 fine.
- Victim J.S. was 14 when assaulted; DNA on boxer's shorts compatible with appellant.
- Indicted April 12, 2005; trial began June 21, 2010; five-year gap without speed-trial motions or objections.
- Evidence included testimony that appellant might be HIV positive, explained to explain victim’s disclosure.
- Trial court admitted HIV-status related testimony over defense objections; jury found appellant guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial preservation and violation claim | Hucks argues denial of speedy trial. | State contends issue not preserved and record insufficient. | Issue not preserved; affirmed judgment on other grounds. |
| Admissibility and harm of HIV-status testimony (Rule 404(b)) | HIV testimony constitutes impermissible extraneous offense. | Testimony was probative of why victim spoke to mother; flag as error. | Harmless error; admission did not affect substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (speedy-trial analysis framework)
- Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation and waivable rights considerations)
- Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation under Rule 33.1(a) governs appellate review)
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (no due-process exception to preservation rule; must preserve rights on record)
- Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ( Barker analysis requires record of delay reasons and prejudice)