Marcus Layne Dickey v. State
13-15-00303-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2016Background
- Marcus Layne Dickey was tried for continuous sexual abuse of a young child (and other related counts); jury convicted him and sentenced him to 25 years.
- The State notified Dickey it would offer extraneous-offense evidence under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.37 and outcry testimony under art. 38.072 concerning A.S., the younger sister of the named complainant E.S.
- At an Article 38.37 voir dire outside the jury, 14‑year‑old A.S. testified she was sexually abused by Dickey repeatedly between ages ~6–9 and identified specific incidents.
- The State asked to present A.S.’s testimony to the jury because its planned outcry witness (Grace Yeager) was ill; the trial court found A.S. credible and admitted her testimony under art. 38.37.
- Dickey appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting A.S.’s extraneous-offense testimony because the court’s finding that the testimony could be found true beyond a reasonable doubt was unsupported.
- The court of appeals affirmed: Dickey failed to preserve complaint about the court’s rationale, and in any event the trial court’s credibility finding and admission were within the zone of reasonable disagreement and harmless in light of corroborating testimony (Yeager and Dr. Nauert).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous sexual-offense testimony under art. 38.37 | Trial court abused discretion by admitting A.S.’s testimony because the court’s finding that the jury could find the extraneous offense true beyond a reasonable doubt was based on limited information | The testimony specified sexual acts and identified Dickey; court reasonably found witness credible and evidence adequate to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; testimony adequate and credibility determination entitled to deference |
| Preservation of complaint about trial-court rationale | N/A (complaint asserted on appeal) | Defense failed to make timely, specific objection that would preserve the issue under Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 | Held not preserved; appellate review denied on preservation grounds |
| Harmlessness of any potential error in admitting A.S.’s testimony | Admission without outcry witness was harmful and affected substantial rights | Any error was harmless because outcry witness Yeager and Dr. Nauert later testified consistently; other properly admitted evidence established same facts | Held harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for extraneous-offense admissibility)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse within zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellate deference to trial-court credibility and demeanor findings)
- Villalon v. State, 791 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (wide latitude given to child-victim testimony in sexual-abuse cases)
- Brooks v. State, 990 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (error in admitting evidence is not reversible where other properly admitted testimony proves same facts)