Jordan, Raleigh
PD-0357-15
| Tex. | May 12, 2015Background
- Raleigh Jordan, an HPD officer, was convicted by jury of two counts of tampering with government records based on allegations he made false entries and supplements to 2009 and 2011 HPD reports using another officer's name/payroll number.
- Internal Affairs investigation began after irregular grand-jury subpoenas (directed to appellant’s wife’s financial institutions) raised concern that police reports had been altered to support subpoenas.
- Computer forensic evidence showed the contested report entries and supplements were created from Jordan’s work computer but attributed to Officer R.T. Lewis.
- Prosecutor and witnesses testified that valid police reports were needed to obtain grand-jury subpoenas; evidence of subpoenas was offered to show motive and as same-transaction contextual evidence.
- Jordan appealed multiple issues (sufficiency, admissibility of extraneous-subpoena evidence, denial of new-trial hearing, Brady claim, arraignment/due-process, and ineffective assistance for not requesting a limiting instruction); the First Court of Appeals affirmed and the PDR challenges the limiting-instruction/404(b) analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jordan) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence insufficient because no witness directly tied Jordan to making the entries | Circumstantial and forensic evidence (entries from Jordan’s computer, motive, Lewis denial) support conviction | Conviction supported; evidence legally sufficient |
| Admissibility of grand-jury subpoena evidence (extraneous acts) | Subpoena evidence irrelevant and prejudicial; not necessary to prove tampering | Admissible to show motive (404(b)) and as same-transaction contextual/background evidence | Admissible for motive and as same-transaction contextual evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Limiting instruction / Ineffective assistance for failing to request one | Because State offered subpoena evidence under 404(b), Jordan was entitled to a Rule 105 limiting instruction; counsel ineffective for failing to seek one | If evidence is same-transaction contextual evidence, Rule 404(b) not implicated and no limiting instruction is required; counsel not ineffective | Court held evidence was same-transaction contextual; no limiting instruction required; counsel not ineffective |
| Motion for new trial hearing (ineffective-assistance claim) | Trial court erred by denying hearing on motion for new trial | Motion lacked timely supporting affidavit; affidavit filed late; court properly declined hearing | No abuse of discretion; motion overruled by operation of law |
| Brady / failure to disclose recorded statement | Prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory recorded statement | Defendant was aware of his own statement and State had given notice it would offer it long before trial | No Brady violation; no disclosure error |
| Due process / arraignment timing | Arraigned the same day as trial; lacked notice of charges | Record shows pretrial arraignment the day before; no motion to quash was filed | Waived objection; no due-process violation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (explaining and approving use of "same transaction contextual evidence" as an exception to Rule 404(b))
- Jackson v. State, 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (discussing need for limiting instruction when extraneous offenses admitted in guilt phase may be used for impermissible character inference)
- Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (describing same-transaction contextual/background evidence and limits on necessity of admission)
- Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (approving same-transaction contextual evidence where intoxication and possession were contemporaneous)
- Westbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (holding closely related contemporaneous acts admissible as res gestae without limiting instruction)
- Buchanan v. State, 911 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (articulating criteria for same-transaction contextual admissibility)