Louis Douglas Rogers v. State
402 S.W.3d 410
Tex. App.2013Background
- Rogers was convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years; State appeals are from Harris County case no. 1306523.
- Rogers argues four issues: alleged false testimony by witnesses; officer’s testimony about witness credibility; impermissibly suggestive photo array; and court costs without adequate supporting documentation.
- Witnesses Boston and Williams testified at trial; their prior statements to police conflicted with trial testimony, which Rogers argues shows false testimony.
- Duhon identified Rogers from a photo array and in court; Williams testified inconsistently with earlier statements and confessed after plea; Robles prepared the photo array and testified at trial; multiple witnesses provided identifications.
- Photo array involved six photos of black men; Rogers’ photo was position 2; the court conducted a two-step reliability analysis for identification.
- Court held: (1) no fundamental error or preserved error for prosecutorial misconduct; (2) no preservation of objection to Robles’s testimony on the trial record; (3) photo array not impermissibly suggestive; (4) costs must be supported by the record, and the judgment was modified to delete a specific dollar amount of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct from false testimony | Rogers argues state presented false testimony violating due process | State failed to preserve or demonstrate misconduct; testimony not false | Issue not preserved; no fundamental error; overruled |
| Officer testimony on witness credibility | Robles’s testimony about Boston’s truthfulness violated due process | Objection did not preserve this theory on appeal | Not preserved; no fundamental error; overruled |
| Photos array impermissibly suggestive | Array allowed automatic exclusion by skin color; impermissibly suggestive | Minor complexion variations not render array suggestive; reliability outweighs concern | Not impermissibly suggestive; overruled |
| Court costs insufficiently supported by record | Record lacks itemized cost bill; dollar amount not supported | Costs are authorized by law; specific amount supported by record | Record failed to support exact cost amount; reform judgment to delete specific dollar amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (fundamental error where trial judge tainted presumption of innocence (plurality))
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (binding precedent; not required to follow Blue plurality)
- Muhammed v. State, 331 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (reaffirms preservation principles)
- Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (fundamental error; preservation requirement)
- Loserth v. State, 963 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (reliability focus in identification issues; two-step analysis)