Kaitlyn Lucretia Ritcherson v. State
03-13-00804-CR
Tex. App.Jan 20, 2015Background
- Appellant Kaitlyn Ritcherson was retried on indictment charging murder under Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1) and (b)(2); jury convicted and assessed 25 years. Defense filed motions/new-trial hearings; appeal follows.
- Fatal stabbing occurred after a confrontation outside Republic Live on Dec. 3–4, 2011; victim Fatima Barrie later died from a chest stab wound to the pulmonary artery. Accounts of the stabbing conflicted: some eyewitnesses described an over-the-shoulder, purposeful stab; others described a chaotic melee in which Barrie struck Ritcherson first.
- Medical testimony established the stabbing was dangerous and fatal but did not establish intent to kill; experts noted the angle, movement, darkness, and clothing made a precise, intentional strike less likely.
- Defense sought (1) a manslaughter lesser‑included instruction, (2) admission of a recorded, emotional outburst by Ritcherson after being told Barrie would die (Def. Ex. 132) at both guilt and punishment phases, and (3) exclusion of certain excited‑utterance hearsay for punishment.
- Trial court denied the manslaughter instruction, excluded the recorded outburst from guilt phase (but allowed mother to relate statements later and admitted portions as excited utterances at punishment over objections), and admitted hearsay about an alleged 2009 knife incident via excited‑utterance testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court erred by refusing a requested manslaughter lesser‑included instruction | Ritcherson: evidence (conflicting eyewitness accounts, medical testimony, knife size, and witness that her act was "reflexive") supplied more than a scintilla to show recklessness rather than intent, so manslaughter should have been submitted | State: murder instruction sufficed; evidence supported conviction for murder | Appellate brief argues trial court erred; under cited authority a manslaughter instruction can be a lesser‑included offense of murder and denial caused "some harm" because jury lacked middle option (preservation and harm argued) |
| 2. Whether the court erred by excluding video of appellant's emotional outburst after being told victim would die (guilt phase) | Ritcherson: the outburst was a hearsay "statement" and admissible as an excited utterance; exclusion deprived jury of exculpatory statements and evidence relevant to mens rea and to request for manslaughter charge | State: objectioned on hearsay/statement grounds (court said statements were not made to detective) | Appellant argues the court misapplied hearsay law and that exclusion likely had a substantial, injurious effect on guilt verdict; trial court later deemed similar statements admissible for punishment but too late for guilt phase |
| 3. Whether exclusion of the same video in punishment (Rule 403) was erroneous | Ritcherson: video is best, non‑cumulative evidence of remorse; probative value outweighs any prejudice; exclusion hampered punishment presentation | State: sought to limit or exclude the recording (court cited Rule 403/time) | Appellant contends exclusion was an abuse of discretion under Rule 403 and likely affected sentencing because prosecutor attacked sincerity of remorse in closing |
| 4. Whether trial court erred admitting hearsay (mother and brother’s statements about a 2009 knife incident) under excited‑utterance exception | Ritcherson: State failed to establish predicate that declarants were so overwhelmed that they could not reflect; admission improperly introduced an unadjudicated violent act for substantive use | State: offered testimony through officer that family members described recent startling event | Appellant argues record lacked adequate predicate for excited‑utterance admission and that introduction of a similar violent incident was highly prejudicial at punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (manslaughter may be a lesser‑included offense to § 19.02(b)(2) murder where the difference is mens rea: intent vs. recklessness)
- Bignall v. State, 887 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (more than a scintilla of evidence suffices to require submission of a lesser‑included offense)
- Otting v. State, 8 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (denial of a requested lesser‑included instruction requires reversal if any harm results because jury was forced to choose between conviction of greater offense or acquittal)
- McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (excited‑utterance timing: a later event can qualify as the startling trigger if it produces an overwhelming emotional reaction)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (explains predicate for excited utterance—declarant’s lack of capacity for reflection; controlling inquiry is whether emotion precluded reflection)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for jury charge error; some harm standard applies)