Jonathan Rawlins v. State
521 S.W.3d 863
Tex. App.2017Background
- On May 17, 2015, Ernest “Emo” Moore was shot and killed after a large confrontation at a Houston pool party; Jonathan Rawlins was identified at trial as the shooter and convicted of murder.
- Witnesses testified Rawlins had confronted Moore inside the party, a fight broke out, and after the fight Rawlins (masked with a bandana) pursued and shot Moore; witnesses later identified Rawlins in a photo array and at trial.
- Rawlins was recorded in a custodial interview admitting membership in YMG (Young Mob Gorillas) and referring to possible gang “beef” between some YMG members and members of Moore’s gang (103).
- Defense moved in limine to exclude gang-membership references unless the State could show relevance; the trial court conditionally admitted the evidence under Rule 104(b), finding gang affiliation relevant to motive if the State could “link it up.”
- The State played Rawlins’s custodial interview and elicited limited testimony about YMG; defense did not renew relevancy objections or move to strike at the close of the State’s case and received a running objection.
- Rawlins appealed, arguing the court erred in admitting gang-affiliation evidence; the First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Rawlins failed to preserve the complaint under conditional-relevancy doctrine and forfeited other Rule-based objections by not raising them at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rawlins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Rawlins’s gang membership evidence | Relevant to motive/intent because Rawlins and Moore were in rival gangs; probative value outweighs prejudice | Evidence was not shown to be connected (no proof of rivalry) and is highly prejudicial gang-character evidence | Court: Evidence was conditionally admissible; Rawlins failed to preserve complaint because he did not re-urge objection or move to strike when connection was not established |
| Preservation under Rule 104(b) (conditional relevancy) | Trial judge properly admitted evidence pending proof and expected State to “connect it up” | Objected pretrial; once State failed to prove rivalry Rawlins had to renew objection at close | Held: Under Fuller/Powell line, failure to re-urge at close forfeits appellate review |
| Rule 404(b) / extraneous-offense challenge | (not raised below) | On appeal, Rawlins argued gang evidence amounted to inadmissible character proof | Held: Not preserved—Rawlins did not object on Rule 404(b) grounds at trial, so appellate review waived |
| Admission of third parties’ gang affiliations (Moore, Bell, Cryer) | State elicited testimony about witnesses’ gang ties for context and bias | Rawlins contended this was prejudicial and irrelevant | Held: Not preserved—no timely trial objection by Rawlins to these witness affiliations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowley v. State, 310 S.W.3d 431 (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Powell v. State, 898 S.W.2d 821 (conditional relevancy; must move to strike if connection not made)
- Fuller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 191 (failure to re-urge relevancy objection at close forfeits appellate review)
- Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229 (gang affiliation may be relevant to show motive for gang-related crime)
- Galvez v. State, 962 S.W.2d 203 (gang membership is highly inflammatory character evidence)
- Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633 (relevancy objection does not preserve a Rule 404 challenge)