John Bradford Scott v. State
09-15-00280-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- John Bradford Scott was tried for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (incident: Sept. 20, 2014 car crash). A jury convicted him and found two prior-felony enhancement paragraphs "true;" he was sentenced to 25 years.
- At the scene Trooper Martinez confronted Scott after a witness reported seeing someone toss an object toward a tree line; Scott eventually admitted he removed a pistol from his truck and placed it in the tree line; deputies recovered the pistol where the witness indicated.
- Trooper Martinez obtained consent to search Scott’s person and found marijuana; Scott was then arrested and later transported to the hospital. A patrol-car audio/video recording of Martinez’s interaction was admitted.
- Scott’s wife testified the gun belonged to her and that she placed it in the truck earlier that day without Scott’s knowledge; Scott testified he panicked after the crash and put the gun off the road.
- Pretrial Scott moved to suppress statements as custodial (Miranda/Art. 38.22) and objected to extraneous-offense questioning; the trial court denied suppression and admitted cross-examination about Scott’s prior federal convictions to rebut the defense of mistake/accident.
- On appeal Scott raised six issues: sufficiency of evidence (possession), admission of extraneous-offense evidence, denial of suppression (custody/Miranda), factual sufficiency of an enhancement allegation, and sentence legality. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Scott) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of possession element | Evidence (witness, Scott’s admission, recovery location, physical acts) establishes affirmative links showing knowing possession | Insufficient: gun found some distance away; no one saw Scott place it; he immediately discarded it so did not "possess" voluntarily | Affirmed: jury could infer knowing possession from admissions, retrieval location, removal from glove compartment, and conduct. |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Prior federal convictions were admissible to rebut defense of mistake/accident and were not offered solely to prove character | Improper character evidence; admission forced Scott to testify to explain priors and violated Rule 404(b) | Affirmed: trial court reasonably found relevance to non-propensity issue (absence of mistake); any error harmless. |
| Denial of motion to suppress statements (custody/Miranda & Art. 38.22) | Statements were noncustodial investigative questioning; Miranda not required; trial court’s factual findings supported | Scott was effectively in custody at scene (told to stay, constrained) so warnings required and statements inadmissible | Affirmed: objective circumstances supported noncustodial finding; statements admissible. |
| Sufficiency/fatal variance of enhancement paragraph B & sentence legality | State proved prior conviction matching date/cause number/court; no surprise — supports enhancement to second prior, justifying 25-yr sentence | Variant: indictment alleged "Armed Burglary" but proof showed "Burglary of a building with intent to commit theft" — fatal variance renders second enhancement invalid and makes 25-yr sentence illegal | Affirmed: variance not fatal because essential identifying details matched and defendant showed no surprise; sentence lawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation/Miranda warnings)
- Brown v. State, 911 S.W.2d 744 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affirmative links for possession)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App.) (proximity and other links can establish possession)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for 404(b) and inclusionary approach)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App.) (situations constituting custody for Miranda)
- Freda v. State, 704 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. Crim. App.) (enhancement variance nonfatal absent surprise)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury fact findings and sufficiency review)