Marsh v. State
343 S.W.3d 475
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Marsh appeals a manslaughter conviction arising from Felicia Smith's death after Marsh fired through his front door during a struggle with Felicia, Marcus Smith, and Keith Bates.
- Marsh claimed self-defense and sought to introduce Marcus Smith's juvenile adjudication for attempted capital murder to support his fear of Marcus.
- The jury acquitted Marsh of murder but convicted of manslaughter and a $10,000 fine; Marcus was charged with aggravated assault.
- The trial court allowed Marsh to present Marcus's character through opinion and reputation but excluded the juvenile adjudication and underlying facts.
- The court conducted a Rule 403/404 analysis, held the prejudicial effect outweighed probative value, and upheld the ruling; Marsh’s self-defense claim could not rely on the juvenile adjudication for manslaughter.
- Even if the ruling were erroneous, the manslaughter verdict required recklessness and self-defense could not justify manslaughter, so the error would not have changed the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Marcus's juvenile adjudication | Marsh argues the adjudication is probative of fear reasonable for self-defense | State contends exclusion aligns with Rule 403/404; risk of prejudice outweighs value | No abuse; ruling within zone of reasonable disagreement |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (review of evidentiary decisions for abuse of discretion; zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (Rule 403/404 balancing; preservation of objections)
- Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (abuse of discretion standard; evidence rulings upheld if supported by record)
- Osbourn v. State, 92 S.W.3d 531 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (evidence rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; cross-examination context considered)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (Rule 403 balancing framework; narrow exceptions for reliability of probative value)
- Foster v. State, 25 S.W.3d 792 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000) (juvenile adjudications generally not admissible for impeachment; limited cross-examination use)
- Carmona v. State, 698 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (limits on cross-examining juvenile records to show bias or motive in certain contexts)
- Harris v. State, 642 S.W.2d 471 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (limits on use of juvenile records for impeachment; bias/motive considerations)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1969) (constitutional cross-examination right; bias considerations in juvenile testimony)