Niare Quenette Lyte v. State
01-15-00166-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Appellant Niare Lyte was convicted of murder and the brief is a reply on appeal challenging punishment-phase conduct and evidence admission.
- During punishment, the prosecutor asked on the record, in front of the jury, for a stipulation that the defendant “did it,” offering that the State would accept mitigating testimony if “they” would stipulate to guilt. Trial court interpreted “they” as the defendant and defense counsel and overruled appellant’s objection.
- None of the defense punishment witnesses had personal knowledge of the killing; no defense witness was in a position to stipulate that Lyte committed the murder.
- Appellant contends the prosecutor’s remark was a comment on the defendant’s silence and an impermissible request that Lyte admit guilt, violating the Fifth Amendment and Texas Constitution art. I, § 10.
- The prosecutor later explained the request as seeking a stipulation by witnesses that they were aware of the jury’s verdict and that Lyte “did it”; appellant argues that explanation is implausible given context and timing.
- Appellant argues the error was constitutional and not harmless; she seeks reversal or, at minimum, a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lyte) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s on-the-record request for a stipulation that the defendant “did it” was an impermissible comment on defendant’s silence | The prosecutor’s remark sought a stipulation from witnesses that they knew of the verdict and accepted that Lyte committed the offense | The remark was directed at Lyte/defense counsel as a demand that Lyte admit guilt; it was a comment on Lyte’s silence and violated the Fifth Amendment | Trial court overruled the objection at trial; on appeal appellant urges reversal (appellate disposition pending in brief) |
| Whether an equally plausible non-constitutional explanation exists for the prosecutor’s remark | The State maintains the comment aimed at obtaining witness stipulations about awareness of the verdict | Lyte argues no witness could truthfully stipulate to guilt and the timing/context shows the prosecutor sought an admission from the defendant | Trial record shows judge thought “they” meant defendant and defense counsel; appellant contends this supports finding prosecutorial intent to comment on silence |
| Whether any curative instruction could render the error harmless | The State contends any harm was cured by the trial court’s instruction | Lyte contends the comment was so prejudicial that no instruction could remove the sting; error was constitutional and not harmless under Rule 44.2(a) | Appellant argues reversal required; court’s final harmlessness ruling is the subject of the appeal |
| Whether the prosecutor’s conduct compels a new punishment hearing | State argues harmless or curable error | Lyte seeks reversal of sentence and remand for new punishment proceedings | Appellant requests new punishment trial; appellate outcome not included in this brief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bohuchot, 625 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 2010) (two-part test for whether prosecutor’s remark is a comment on defendant’s silence)
- Bustamante v. State, 48 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (analyzing prosecutorial comments from the jury’s standpoint and considering context)
- Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (deference to trial court findings on credibility and demeanor)
- Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (reviewing court should defer to trial court’s credibility determinations)
- Birdsong v. State, 82 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (calling defendant to testify violates Fifth Amendment)
- Angel v. State, 627 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (party stipulations and implications regarding admissions)
- O'Conner v. State, 401 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (stipulations between parties construed to effectuate intentions)
- Carrasco v. State, 154 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (permissible stipulations and admission of evidence)
- Tamez v. State, 11 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (discussing stipulations to priors)