McGee v. State
342 S.W.3d 245
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- McGee was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child related to his girlfriend's five-year-old daughter.
- The main evidence consisted of McGee's written confession and a drawing showing the insertion of his finger into the child's vagina; the child did not testify.
- McGee challenged the trial court’s Batson ruling regarding the State’s use of a peremptory strike on an African-American venireman, Shepherd.
- McGee argued the written confession and drawing should be suppressed as involuntary, coerced, or improperly Mirandized, and that he was in custody.
- The State defended the confession by detailing the circumstances of the interrogation and the absence of custodial conditions.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment, denying relief on Batson, suppression, and sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge proper? | McGee asserts Batson discrimination in venire strike. | State asserts a race-neutral reason: Shepherd was asleep. | Batson challenge overruled; race-neutral reason accepted. |
| Suppression of confession | McGee claims improper Miranda warnings and coercion. | State contends warnings were proper and not custody-based. | Suppression denied; warnings adequate and no custodial interrogation proven. |
| Custody necessity for Miranda | Interrogation occurred in custody, requiring Miranda. | Record shows non-custodial circumstances. | Not in custody; Miranda not required. |
| Legal sufficiency | Evidence insufficient to convict given conflicting or weak proof. | Confession and drawing prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence legally sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (prima facie Batson showing shifts burden to State)
- Moore v. State, 265 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (sleeping juror as race-neutral Batson rationale)
- Lamons v. State, 938 S.W.2d 774 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (support for race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes)
- Muhammad v. State, 911 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995) (peremptory challenges and voir dire considerations)
- Roberson v. State, 866 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1993) (need for substantiation when issue is difficult to determine)
- Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (custody evaluation framework for Miranda applicability)
- Dowthitt v. State, 931 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (custody criteria; free to leave factors)
- Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (briefing adequacy requirement under Rule 38.1(i))
- Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (overruling on other grounds; briefing standards)