Jeremy Thomas v. State
01-11-00258-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 26, 2015Background
- Defendant Jeremy Thomas was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment; this is the State’s appellate brief responding to four points of error asserted by Thomas.
- Key eyewitnesses (Ochelata Reliford and Trancquena Johnson) lived in the same apartment complex and identified Thomas in-court and via photo array as the shooter after witnessing him approach the victim’s apartment, shoot the victim, then run past them with a gun.
- A juror note during deliberations asked that testimony be read back regarding who was outside and shirt colors; the trial judge used a standard article 36.28 boilerplate form and read selected portions of Johnson’s testimony back to the jury.
- Defense moved to suppress Reliford’s in-court ID, arguing pretrial photo-array suggestiveness (other witnesses had signed the same photo slot); the trial court denied the motion.
- During voir dire, venireman No. 25 said he “probably” could not give the defendant a fair trial because of the defendant’s appearance; the judge questioned the venireman at the bench, the venireman said he could follow the law, and the judge denied a challenge for cause.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read‑back procedure (art. 36.28) | Trial judge misused boilerplate form, read incomplete/overbroad excerpts, and thereby harmed defendant | Objection at trial was narrow (requested additional cross/redirect testimony from Johnson); on appeal appellant raises different complaints that were not preserved | Appellant failed to preserve appellate complaints; no reviewable error preserved |
| Pretrial photo‑array suggestiveness and in‑court ID | Reliford’s in‑court ID was tainted by a suggestive array (signatures on photo slot) and should have been suppressed | Even if array was suggestive, reliability factors (opportunity to view, attention, certainty, short delay, prior acquaintance) defeat claim of very substantial likelihood of misidentification; in‑court ID had independent origin | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying suppression; in‑court ID admissible |
| Judge’s comment during voir dire ("looks like a thug") | Comment vitiated presumption of innocence and required reversal; Blue permits fundamental‑error review without objection | Blue is plurality and not precedential; comment was made to one non‑sitting venireman at bench, did not reach the empaneled jurors, and did not show judicial bias | No fundamental error; no preservation; no reversible harm |
| Denial of challenge for cause to venireman No. 25 | Venireman expressed bias and inability to give a fair trial; challenge for cause should have been granted | Venireman equivocated; judge properly questioned him to clarify and venireman said he could follow law and hold State to burden; denial was within discretion | Denial of challenge for cause was not an abuse of discretion; judge’s bench questioning permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Barley v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (two‑step test for suggestive out‑of‑court identification and the reliability factors governing admissibility)
- Unkart v. State, 400 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (Blue has no precedential value; plurality/concurring rationales differ; guidance on when judicial comments may be treated as fundamental error)
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (plurality holding that certain judicial comments during voir dire can vitiate presumption of innocence and may be fundamental error)
- Jenkins v. State, 912 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (familiarity with suspect reduces likelihood of misidentification)
- Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for excusing a juror for cause and deference to trial judge when prospective juror equivocated)