Joshua Golliday v. State
02-15-00416-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 13, 2016Background
- Joshua Golliday was convicted by a jury of sexual assault; trial court sentenced him to two years, suspended, and seven years’ community supervision. Appeal followed.
- The central contested issue at trial was consent; the parties’ accounts diverged after the complainant and Golliday were alone following a social visit.
- The complainant reported drinking that night, admitted use of medications (Xanax, Zoloft), had a history of inpatient treatment at Millwood for addiction/mental-health issues, and told a SANE examiner about anxiety, herpes, and medication use.
- Defense sought to cross-examine the complainant and the SANE about the complainant’s substance use, psychiatric treatment, medication effects (including memory impairment/blackouts from mixing Xanax and alcohol), and inconsistent statements to explain her ability to perceive and recall events.
- The trial court sustained prosecution objections (hearsay, relevance, Rule 404) and barred those inquiries from the jury; defense preserved error via offers of proof.
- The court of appeals held exclusion of that evidence violated Golliday’s confrontation/due-process rights by preventing him from presenting a vital defense, reversed, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of cross-examination on complainant’s substance use, treatment, and medication effects violated confrontation/due-process rights | Excluded evidence was relevant to complainant’s ability to perceive, recall, and recount events and thus to bias/impeachment; exclusion prevented presentation of defense | Evidence was hearsay, irrelevant, and barred by Rule 404; exclusion proper | Reversed: exclusion violated defendant’s constitutional right to confront and present a defense because it prevented meaningful cross-examination on issues directly affecting credibility |
| Whether defense preserved error for appellate review after exclusion | Offers of proof and voir dire established subject matter sought to be examined; Holmes line permits preservation without detailed proof | State relied on standard evidentiary objections | Held preserved: offers of proof adequately preserved complaint about prohibited cross-examination |
| Standard for admitting impeachment evidence in sexual-assault he-said/she-said cases | Defendant urged broad latitude to admit credibility-related evidence, especially on bias, motive, impairment | State urged ordinary application of relevance, Rule 403, and Rule 404 limits | Court applied Davis/Carroll/Hammer principles: greater latitude required when cross-examination targets bias, motive, or impairment affecting credibility; exclusion here improper |
| Remedy for constitutional evidentiary error | Defendant sought reversal | State would argue harmlessness | Reversed and remanded under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a): constitutional error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (describes preservation and scope when defendant is denied cross-examination on credibility matters)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (constitutional right of cross-examination includes exposing witness motivations/bias)
- Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (urges liberal admission of credibility-related evidence in sexual-assault he-said/she-said cases)
- Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (broad scope of cross-examination to expose motive, bias, or interest)
- Virts v. State, 739 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (right to impeach with evidence affecting perception, recall, or recounting of events)
- Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (reminder of constitutional right to present a defense so jury may weigh defendant’s evidence)