Nichols, Coleman
PD-0523-15
| Tex. App. | May 11, 2015Background
- Coleman W. Nichols was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault (family-violence) and sentenced to 27 years’ confinement; the Second Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Shortly before trial the State produced 236 pages of CPS records (delivered the Thursday before a Monday trial start); Nichols sought a two‑week continuance to investigate and subpoena witnesses identified in those records.
- Trial court denied the continuance; CPS records were admitted into the record but Nichols contends he lacked time to investigate and obtain testimony (including CPS workers and counseling/ drug‑test records) needed for impeachment and mitigation at punishment.
- Nichols also sought discovery and cross‑examination about the complainant Diana Adame’s prior role as a confidential informant; the trial court limited discovery and excluded questioning as irrelevant, which Nichols argues violated Brady/Giglio and his confrontation rights.
- After sentencing Nichols moved for a new trial alleging, inter alia, prejudicial denial of continuance, exclusion of evidence, and a quotient jury verdict; the trial court denied the motion by operation of law and the court of appeals rejected Nichols’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nichols) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial-court denial of continuance to investigate CPS records | Denial prevented presentation of a complete defense and mitigation; two‑week continuance was reasonable given late production of 236 pages and need to subpoena witnesses | Scheduling and fairness to State outweigh delay; many impeachment/mitigation avenues already known or presented | Court of Appeals: no abuse of discretion; even if error, Nichols showed no actual prejudice; affirmed |
| Reasonableness of two‑week continuance request | Two weeks was necessary and feasible (judge sitting by assignment; State produced records late) | Late production did not justify continuance; defense speculation insufficient | Denied — continuance request not shown to require reversal |
| Exclusion/limited discovery of Adame’s prior confidential‑informant status; Brady/Giglio claim | Informant history was Brady/Giglio material and relevant to impeachment and punishment; jury’s note asking whether Adame was an informer shows prejudice | Adame’s informant role ended years earlier; defense already elicited drug‑use and credibility evidence; disclosure or questioning would not likely change outcome | Court of Appeals: trial court within discretion; nondisclosure not materially likely to change outcome; cross‑examination limits proper; claim overruled |
| Alleged quotient verdict and denial of new trial on punishment | Juror notes and affidavits show averaging among jurors; new trial on punishment required | Juror testimony/affidavits about deliberations barred by Tex. R. Evid. 606(b); no admissible evidence of pre‑agreement to be bound by an average | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; no admissible proof of quotient agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence and witness‑promises disclosure rule)
- Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (continuance abuse‑of‑discretion standard and harm analysis)
- Janecka v. State, 937 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (prejudice requirement for continuance errors)
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for continuance rulings)
- Heiselbetz v. State, 906 S.W.2d 500 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (prejudice showing for denied continuance)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (limits on cross‑examination and Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency review and jury’s role as factfinder)