Johnny Lloyd Patton, Jr. v. State
07-16-00042-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Johnny Lloyd Patton Jr. was convicted by a jury of murder for shooting and killing Richard Slatkin; jury assessed life imprisonment.
- Incident: Slatkin (ex-husband of Patton’s paramour) came to retrieve appliances; after a brief encounter Patton exited his car, shot Slatkin once in the chest; Slatkin was unarmed.
- Prior to the shooting Patton called police and spoke with a dispatcher while at the scene, telling the dispatcher he was going to have to shoot Slatkin; a recording captured Patton saying he didn’t know whether Slatkin had a weapon.
- Detective Llewellyn testified that, based on the recording, Patton’s statement that he didn’t know if Slatkin had a weapon did not justify deadly force under Texas law.
- State rebuttal included testimony from Patton’s former wife about multiple prior instances where Patton threatened her with or used a gun; trial court instructed jury on self-defense and on proper consideration of extraneous-offense evidence.
- On appeal Patton raised three issues: alleged voir dire dilution of the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, objection to the detective’s testimony on an ultimate issue (self-defense), and improper State jury argument including reference to extraneous offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire comments allegedly diluted reasonable-doubt standard | Voir dire remarks telling jurors the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt" as "whatever it means to you" impermissibly lowered burden; fundamental error | State argued comments merely told jurors they each apply their own understanding of reasonable doubt and were not fundamentally harmful; no objection was made at trial | Court: Waiver for failure to object; comments not fundamental error; no reversal |
| Expert testimony on ultimate issue (self-defense) | Detective’s testimony that Patton’s statement didn’t justify deadly force impermissibly invaded jury’s role on ultimate issue | State: Testimony was permissible assessment of recorded statement and legal application; no contemporaneous objection | Court: Issue waived for lack of objection; not reviewed on merits |
| Admission of extraneous-offense evidence (wife’s testimony) | Testimony about prior threats/assaults was improper and prejudicial; should not have been before jury | State: Evidence admissible in rebuttal and trial court instructed jury on limited use | Court: Issue waived for lack of objection; not reviewed on merits |
| State’s closing argument (reference to extraneous events) | Closing argument improperly referenced extraneous-offense evidence and was improper jury argument | State: No timely objection; argument was tied to evidence and rebuttal; trial court gave limiting instruction | Court: Issue waived for failure to object; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- McLean v. State, 312 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (examined whether unobjected-to judicial comments during voir dire denied fair trial)
- Haro v. State, 371 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (held voir dire remarks framing reasonable doubt as an individual juror’s assessment were not fundamental error)
- Gillenwaters v. State, 205 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (failure to object at trial waives appellate complaint)
- Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (preservation rules require timely objection except for fundamental constitutional/systemic errors)