John Joseph Priest v. State
14-14-00159-CR
| Tex. | Aug 18, 2015Background
- John Joseph Priest was convicted by a jury of indecency with a child and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- During voir dire the venire had 40 prospective jurors after challenges for cause; three were identified as African‑American and the State peremptorily struck all three.
- Priest objected under Batson, arguing the strikes were racially motivated and pointing to similarly situated non‑African‑American jurors who were not struck. The prosecutor gave demeanor, age, parental status, and incomplete jury‑card information as race‑neutral reasons.
- Priest sought to call Dr. Carmen Petzold (a psychologist) to opine about false memories and to rely on the complainant’s school/psychological records; the court allowed only general expert testimony and excluded specifics and the records on hearsay/double‑hearsay grounds.
- Priest filed a motion for new trial arguing the evidentiary exclusions violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense; the trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting Priest’s Batson claim, finding the constitutional challenge to evidence was not preserved, and holding no abuse of discretion in denying a new‑trial hearing; thus no cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Priest) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Batson challenge to State's peremptory strikes | Struck all African‑American veniremembers showing purposeful racial discrimination; similarly situated non‑black jurors were not struck. | Prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons (demeanor, age, no children, incomplete jury cards, more information known about other jurors). | Court: Overruled — State's reasons were facially race neutral and not shown to be pretextual; no clear error in trial court's ruling. |
| 2. Exclusion of expert testimony/records (right to present a defense) | Excluding Dr. Petzold’s testimony about specifics and the school/psych records deprived Priest of a complete defense. | Exclusion proper because testimony as to specifics would invade jury province and records presented hearsay/double‑hearsay problems. | Court: Overruled — issue not preserved on appeal (Priest did not raise constitutional claim at trial). |
| 3. Denial of motion for new trial without evidentiary hearing | Motion alleged trial‑court errors not determinable from record; hearing required to resolve constitutional claim. | Issues were litigated at trial and determinable from the record; no new factual matters requiring a hearing. | Court: Overruled — no abuse of discretion; motion raised matters determinable from the record. |
| 4. Cumulative error | Combined effect of alleged errors requires reversal. | No individual error shown, so no cumulative harm. | Court: Overruled — no errors found, therefore no cumulative harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (established rule forbidding race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (right to present a complete defense limits exclusion of critical defense evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (defendant may object to race‑based strikes even if not of same race as excluded jurors)
- Nieto v. State, 365 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (Batson framework and analysis in Texas)
- Jones v. State, 431 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (comparative juror analysis in Batson review)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (wrongful exclusion of a single juror can require reversal)