Kourtney Atkins v. State
06-17-00091-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- In mid-2016, Officer Johnny Lee Bailey responded to a disturbance at Marilyn Eason’s home involving Eason, her son Kourtney Atkins, and an infant.
- During a physical struggle on the porch, Atkins tossed an object into the house; officers secured Atkins in a patrol car.
- Bailey testified he obtained Eason’s consent to search the residence for the object; the subsequent search recovered a pill bottle containing methamphetamine.
- Atkins moved to suppress the drugs, arguing Bailey’s testimony that Eason consented was inadmissible hearsay and that its admission violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; Atkins was convicted of possession (with enhancement) and sentenced to life.
Issues
| Issue | Atkins’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s testimony about Eason’s statement was inadmissible hearsay at the suppression hearing | Testimony recounting Eason’s consent was hearsay and should be excluded | Rules of evidence (except privileges) and hearsay limitations do not apply to suppression hearings | Denied — admission was proper because suppression hearings allow hearsay and other inadmissible evidence |
| Whether admitting that testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | Admission of out-of-court testimonial statements deprived Atkins of his Sixth Amendment right to confront Eason | Confrontation Clause does not apply to pretrial suppression hearings | Denied — Confrontation Clause inapplicable to suppression hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (discusses Confrontation Clause limits on introduction of forensic and testimonial statements at trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes confrontation right for testimonial out-of-court statements at trial)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980) (trial courts may rely on hearsay and other otherwise inadmissible evidence at suppression hearings)
- Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (hearsay admissible at suppression hearings; officer testimony about facts forming probable cause is not hearsay)
- Murphy v. State, 640 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (hearsay admissible at suppression hearings to show consent to search)
- Vennus v. State, 282 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (rules on preliminary questions and applicability of evidentiary rules at suppression hearings)