Jaqualien Grant v. State
14-13-01078-CR
| Tex. | Aug 25, 2015Background
- Grant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sexual assault, with DNA linking him to the vaginal samples.
- Complainant was abducted from an apartment complex, held in an abandoned apartment, subjected to multiple sexual assaults, and released after dark.
- Complainant could not identify Grant at trial; she described one attacker as a tall man, while two assailants were involved.
- The State introduced extraneous-offense evidence of a prior aggravated kidnapping and sexual assault two weeks earlier, with DNA linking Grant.
- Jury found complainant was not released in a safe place; punishment was life imprisonment for aggravated kidnapping and 20 years for sexual assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether the release was in a safe place | State argued the totality showed not safe place | Grant argued the release occurred in a safe place | Not safe place; evidence sufficient; defense rejected |
| admissibility of extraneous offenses under 404(b) and 403 | State contends extraneous offenses rebut consent and are admissible | Grant contends improper for lack of door opened and for prejudice | Court upheld admission under 404(b)/403 |
| whether admission of extraneous offenses was unduly prejudicial | State argues probative value outweighed prejudice | Grant argues prejudice outweighed probative value | Probative value not outweighed by prejudice; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (affirmative defenses evaluated for legal and factual sufficiency)
- Lavarry v. State, 936 S.W.2d 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996) (LavARRY factors guide safe-release analysis (nonexclusive))
- Storr v. State, 126 S.W.3d 647 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (ineffective-assistance contrast; not controlling here)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (extraneous-offense relevance to defensive theory)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (modus operandi as exception to 404(b) in consent defenses)
- Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (distinctive modus operandi to prove lack of consent)
- Bargas v. State, 252 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (balancing test for Rule 403 prejudicial risk)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (general Rule 403 framework referenced)
- Nolan v. State, 102 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (fact-specific safety-release analysis guidance)
- Taylor v. State, 920 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (general admissibility/evidentiary balancing principles)