Jackie Lee Bibbs v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4677

Bibbs was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole in Texas.
The murder involved Bibbs chasing Candy Daniels, his former partner, and shooting her at a store and nearby locations.
Candy sought a protective order in May 2009; Bibbs’ parole terms were later amended to prohibit contact with Candy.
The State pursued a retaliation-based capital murder theory tied to Candy potentially being a witness.
Two pretrial issues challenged: suppression of the protective-order evidence and admission of State's Exhibit 2 (S-2).
The jury watched surveillance video of the shooting and reviewed multiple exhibits at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress—due process via grand jury issue	Bibbs argues suppression violated due process by jury hearing unpresented retaliation grounds.	State maintains no grand jury right applies and indictment supports law.	No reversible error; grand jury rights not violated.
Admission of S-2 and confrontation	S-2 is testimonial hearsay; violates Crawford and confrontation.	S-2 was non-testimonial or forfeiture should apply.	Admission violated Crawford; error harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Hearsay nature and harmless error	S-2 is hearsay; its admission affected verdict.	Evidence was cumulative; not outcome-determinative.	Hearsay error deemed harmless; verdict upheld.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence shows retaliation motive and capital murder elements beyond doubt.	Insufficient to prove retaliation connection to protective-order/witness status.	Evidence sufficient to rationally support conviction for capital murder.
Photographs—Rule 403 balancing	S-25 and S-26 are prejudicial and inflaming.	Photos probative and not unduly prejudicial.	Photographs not an abuse of discretion; balancing proper.

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) (no fifth amendment grand jury right in state prosecutions)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (grand jury/right to jury not fundamental in this context)
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (context for evidentiary rulings and credibility)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation clause)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing limits confrontation waiver)
Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (forfeiture doctrine in Texas (Tex. Crim. App.))
Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (harmless-error review under 44.2)
Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (harmless-error standard for non-constitutional errors)
Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 considerations for photographs)
Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (photographs probative value in homicide cases)
Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (forensic and evidentiary considerations in appellate review)