Kimball Douglas Hailey II v. State
413 S.W.3d 457
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Hailey was convicted of capital murder of a child under six; death penalty waived, resulting in life imprisonment without parole.
- The offense involved the death of Appellant's girlfriend's two-and-a-half-year-old son, E.C., with Appellant living with Williams and her children at the time.
- Williams testified about Appellant's mood swings and abuse; E.C. suffered a skull fracture from blunt force trauma.
- The State introduced multiple inculpatory statements made by Hailey to various individuals; Hailey gave recorded statements to police asserting innocence.
- A key evidentiary issue was the State's admission of Williams's full pretrial interview under Rule 107 (optional completeness); the court found any error harmless.
- The trial also addressed custodial statements to Butler (CPS) and Adams (inmate with a cell phone), voir dire concerning a juror (veniremember 51), and requested jury instructions under Article 38.23/38.22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| admissibility of witness interview under Rule 107 | State: interview was admissible to prevent misleading partial impressions | Hailey: entire tape contained extraneous material; prejudicial | Harmless error; overall record supports conviction despite excess |
| custodial statements to Butler admissibility | State: Butler not a state agent; Miranda/38.22 not triggered | Hailey: Butler acted as government agent; rights violated | Not an agent of the state; admissible |
| custodial statements to CPS investigator | State: CPS interview not requiring Miranda warnings | Hailey: CPS—agency with police; rights violated | Not an agent; admissible |
| cell phone statements to inmate Adams | State: evidence obtained despite inmate's illegal phone possession; 38.23 does not apply | Hailey: 38.23 requires exclusion for illegally obtained evidence | 38.23 not violated; admissible |
| denial of challenge for cause re veniremember 51; implied bias | State: implied bias doctrine not recognized by Texas law | Hailey: implied bias should permit challenge for cause | Uranga doctrine not adopted; no abuse of discretion; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Sauceda v. State, 129 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard for Rule 107 harmlessness analysis)
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Rule 107 context; completeness and impeachment considerations)
- Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (completeness needs; full context to avoid false impressions)
- Tovar v. State, 221 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (tape evidence and impeachment considerations)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1964) (Sixth Amendment; deliberate elicitation concerns)
- Wilkerson v. State, 173 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (agency and custodial interrogation; state-agent analysis)
- Berry v. State, 233 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (agents and Miranda/article 38.22 analysis in CPS context)
- Escamilla v. State, 143 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (police-agent entanglement; reporter interview scenario)
- Uranga v. State, 330 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (implied bias doctrine; limits in Texas)