Larry Joseph Tillman Jr. v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5935
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Tillman was convicted of capital murder in Harris County, Texas, and sentenced to life; this appeal comes on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The offense occurred December 21–22, 2005, involving a trio who robbed and killed two victims at Wilson’s gated townhome in Houston; suspects included Malcolm Williams and Cornelius Clark (Jabo) among others.
- Eyewitnesses included Avila and Christoffel who described a tall African-American shooter; physical evidence included bloody footprints and a size-15 Reebok I3 shoe.
- Bobby Williams, a Crime Stoppers tipster, provided information leading to suspect identification; subsequent photo spreads and a live lineup identified Tillman as the perpetrator by Avila.
- Rodriguez, a jailhouse informant, disclosed details of the crime overheard from Tillman; his credibility and potential motives were explored at trial.
- Dr. Roy Malpass offered expert testimony on eyewitness identification procedures but was excluded; the Court of Appeals previously reversed on remand to consider harm.
- On remand, the court held the exclusion of Malpass’s testimony was harmless and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of Malpass testimony was constitutional error | Tillman argues exclusion precluded meaningful defense. | State contends exclusion was non-constitutional and permissible. | Exclusion was non-constitutional harm; harmless. |
| Whether exclusion of Malpass testimony affected verdict under 44.2 harms analysis | Tillman asserts substantial-right harm would have altered verdict. | State argues any harm was incremental and harmless. | Harmless error under Rule 44.2(b); no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (non-constitutional error where evidence would only incrementally help defense)
- Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (identification evidence exclusion may be constitutional if vital to defense)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (non-constitutional harmless-error framework for evidentiary rulings)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (high-court guidance on confrontation and identification safeguards)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harm analysis for constitutional error in trial)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless-error assessment in evidence exclusion)
- Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (holistic harm evaluation for constitutional challenges)