John Calvin Marshall v. State
12-14-00368-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 12, 2016Background
- Appellant John Calvin Marshall entered Kay Jackson’s unlocked back door without permission, forced her into a bedroom, undressed her, and attempted sexual penetration; he left when he could not achieve an erection. Jackson later reported the assault; Marshall was charged with burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault.
- At arrest/booking Detective King recorded Marshall without his knowledge. King read Miranda-type warnings; Marshall invoked his desire for counsel and King ceased questioning but recorded Marshall’s outgoing phone calls and heard Marshall make statements to his wife about the incident.
- The State introduced extraneous-conduct testimony from Jean Mullins describing two prior unwanted sexual-contact incidents by Marshall at the Children’s Advocacy Center, and evidence showing Mullins’ report led investigators to suspect Marshall and contact Jackson.
- Defense sought suppression of post-arrest statements (invoking counsel), exclusion of Mullins’ testimony as impermissible character evidence, and sought to call Martha Wetherholt to challenge Jackson’s character and credibility; Wetherholt was excluded.
- During closing, the State urged jurors to consider how a sexual-assault victim might reasonably act; defense objected and requested mistrial—court sustained part of the objection, denied mistrial, and allowed remaining argument.
- The jury convicted Marshall; on appeal the court affirmed, rejecting suppression, exclusion, and improper-argument claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Marshall) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to suppress recorded statements | Recording lawful; statements voluntary; booking and phone calls not interrogation after counsel invoked | Recording continued after he requested counsel violated Miranda/38.22 and his Fifth Amendment right | Court upheld denial: no reasonable expectation of privacy in the calls; recording of calls to third parties is not interrogation; statements admissible |
| 2. Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (Mullins) | Evidence admissible to rebut consent defense, show intent, and explain how Marshall became a suspect (same-transaction/contextual) | Evidence was character conformity, highly prejudicial, and cumulative | Court upheld admission: relevant to intent/consent and to how suspect identified; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| 3. Exclusion of witness Wetherholt | Exclusion proper: testimony irrelevant and lacked personal knowledge; Rule 403/412 concerns | Wetherholt would show Jackson’s prior late-night/social behavior and changed personality, relevant to credibility and state of mind; exclusion violated rights to call witnesses | Court upheld exclusion: proffer lacked relevance to the charged offense and lacked personal knowledge; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| 4. Improper jury argument in closing | Argument was a permissible reasonable deduction from evidence about victim’s reaction and consent | Prosecutor asked jurors to put themselves in victim’s shoes; that is improper and prejudicial; mistrial warranted | Court rejected claim: line of argument invited common-sense inferences about victim’s behavior; not extreme or manifestly improper; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response)
- State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460 (appellate review gives prevailing party strongest legitimate view of evidence)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (standard for relevance and Rule 404(b) admissibility)
- Cantrell v. State, 731 S.W.2d 84 (extraneous offenses may prove intent; doctrine of chances)
- Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707 (404(b) relevance can include rebutting defensive theory)
- Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (same-transaction contextual evidence admissible to explain the offense)
- State v. Mechler, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Rule 403 balancing factors)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses subject to evidentiary rules)