Khalon Javon Westbrooks v. State
14-14-00500-CR
| Tex. | Dec 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Khalon Westbrooks broke into an apartment with a knife, assaulted the occupants, and committed aggravated sexual assault and burglary. He was convicted and sentenced (75 years for sexual assault, 20 years for burglary, concurrent).
- At trial Westbrooks claimed involuntary intoxication: he testified to drinking and smoking marijuana and not remembering events after a party; an ex-girlfriend testified she slipped a Clonazepam into his drink without his knowledge.
- During Westbrooks’s testimony about his intoxication, the prosecutor asked whether he had ever been intoxicated and then elicited that he had been arrested for public intoxication the night before; defense objected based on untimely notice of extraneous-act evidence.
- Westbrooks requested a jury charge placing on the State the burden to disprove involuntary intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt; the trial court instead instructed that he must prove involuntary intoxication by a preponderance (treating it as an affirmative defense).
- The court of appeals reviewed (1) admission of the public-intoxication arrest for impeachment and (2) whether involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Westbrooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor could impeach Westbrooks with a public-intoxication arrest despite allegedly untimely notice | Impeachment on cross during defendant’s case-in-chief does not trigger Rule 404(b) notice requirement; evidence admissible to challenge credibility | Admission violated Rule 404(b) and art. 37.07 notice requirements because the State failed to give reasonable prior notice of extraneous act evidence | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; Rule 404(b) notice applies to State’s case-in-chief, not to impeachment during defendant’s case-in-chief; art. 37.07 inapplicable to guilt/innocence phase |
| Whether involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense (burden on defendant by preponderance) | Involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense; court may require defendant to prove it by preponderance | Involuntary intoxication is not labeled in Penal Code as an "affirmative defense," so State should bear burden to disprove beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: Court of Criminal Appeals treats involuntary intoxication as an affirmative defense; trial court properly placed burden on defendant to prove it by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for review of extraneous-act evidence admission)
- Jaubert v. State, 74 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (Rule 404(b) notice requirement limited to State’s case-in-chief)
- Morales v. State, 389 S.W.3d 915 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (same interpretation of Rule 404(b) notice scope)
- Mendenhall v. State, 77 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (involuntary intoxication treated as an affirmative defense)
- Torres v. State, 585 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (recognizing involuntary intoxication as affirmative defense)