Joshua Golliday v. State
551 S.W.3d 193
Tex. App.2017Background
- Joshua Golliday was convicted by a jury of sexual assault (single-count indictment); punishment assessed at two years’ confinement, suspended, and seven years’ community supervision imposed. Appeal followed.
- The dispute at trial was consent; intercourse was not disputed. The case was a classic “he said, she said.”
- Complainant testified she had been drinking, had gaps in memory, and gave inconsistent accounts (e.g., uncertainty about where the assault occurred, what she told police, and whether the defendant ejaculated).
- Defense sought to cross-examine the complainant and the sexual-assault nurse examiner (SANE) about: complainant’s substance-abuse and mental-health treatment (Millwood records), statements to treatment providers and the SANE (including that she had not accepted being raped, was a “love addict,” mixed Zoloft and alcohol, had prior accusations), and interactions with a friend (Ryan Bradshaw) earlier that night.
- The trial court sustained the State’s objections (hearsay, relevance, Rule 404), excluding those portions of the proffered testimony and limiting cross-examination. The defense argued the evidence was necessary to impeach credibility and present a full defense; the court denied relief.
- On appeal the en banc court held the trial court’s exclusions denied Golliday his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront witnesses, reversed, and remanded for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of cross-examination and proffered testimony violated the Sixth Amendment and right to present a defense | Exclusion prevented impeachment of complainant’s credibility, masking bias, motive, mental state, substance use, and prior inconsistent statements necessary to present a vital defensive theory | Objections claimed hearsay, irrelevance, and Rule 404 concerns; State argued error not preserved | Court held exclusion violated constitutional rights; evidence was constitutionally required to be admitted and error was harmful — reversal and remand |
| Whether defendant preserved complaint about excluded evidence | Defense made offers of proof and explained relevance; preservation satisfied under Rule 103(a)(2) for excluded evidence | State and dissent argued preservation inadequate (confused with rules for admitted evidence) | Court held preservation proper: offer of proof sufficed and constitutional complaints were preserved |
| Whether Rule 403/404 justified barring the proffered evidence of complainant’s medical/treatment history and statements | Evidence was highly probative of perception, memory, motive, bias, and ability to recount events; relevance supported cross-examination and Rule 803(4)/107/completeness doctrines | State argued hearsay, 404(b), and prejudice concerns justified exclusion | Court found the probative value and constitutional need outweighed exclusionary rules; trial court erred |
| Whether error was harmless | State implicitly argued any error was harmless given conviction | Appellant argued excluded material was central to credibility and could have changed outcome | Court applied rule requiring reversal unless error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; held error was harmful and reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination to expose witness bias/motive is constitutionally protected)
- Hammer v. State, 296 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (constitutional limits on rules that prevent cross-examination about motives/bias when critical to defense)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishing preservation rules for excluded vs. admitted evidence; offer of proof suffices for excluded evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 490 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (evidence relevant to complainant’s bias/motive or constitutionally required must generally be admitted in cases hinging on credibility)
- 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) (cross-examination includes impeachment on impairment or conditions affecting perception/recall)