LaMarques Devon McWilliams v. State
367 S.W.3d 817
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellant Lamarques McWilliams was convicted by jury of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to life.
- Chelsea Brazier testified she initially agreed to sex for money but was nonconsensual after being threatened, restrained, and driven to a secluded location.
- Brazier was penetrated anally and vaginally; she escaped from the trunk and sought help.
- Jacqueline Hargrove testified Brazier knocked on her door seeking help; police arrived later.
- Rhonda Craig, an FBI forensic DNA examiner, supervised testing and authored the lab report, describing the testing process and data interpretation.
- Appellant challenged admissibility of the DNA testimony under the Confrontation Clause and challenged hearsay testimony attributed to Hargrove.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability | McWilliams argues Craig's testimony based on non-testifying biologists violated confrontation. | State relies on supervisor testimony permissible under Melendez-Diaz bullcoming exception and Texas law. | Confrontation not violated; Craig had direct involvement and supervision of testing. |
| Hearsay admissibility of excited utterance | Statement repeated by Hargrove was hearsay with no exception. | Statement fits excited utterance exception due to Brazier's fear and stress during events. | Statement admitted as excited utterance; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (surrogate testimony generally violates Confrontation Clause; need live analyst)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) (forensic reports require live testimony of the analyst)
- Settlemire v. State, 323 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (supervisor testimony admissible in some contexts)
- Hamilton v. State, 300 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (expert may testify about others' lab data if not sole reliance)
- Lane v. State, 174 S.W.3d 376 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (excited utterance considerations for hearsay)
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (criteria for admissibility of excited utterances)