Peter Mark Lee v. State
04-16-00368-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Peter Mark Lee was convicted by a jury of misdemeanor assault with bodily injury after an altercation with his wife, Rachel Lee; sentence: one year in jail, probated for two years.
- Incident: after a party with alcohol, a physical altercation occurred in the couple’s bedroom; both parties had injuries and officers observed bruising and smelled alcohol.
- Rachel called Boerne Police Department/dispatch to report the domestic disturbance; she did not testify at trial and made statements during the emergency call that were admitted in redacted form.
- The State presented testimony from responding officers, photographs of Rachel’s injuries, the 9-1-1 recording, and lay testimony from EMT Jovanca Liedl about observed injuries and possible cause.
- On appeal Lee argued (1) admission of Rachel’s emergency-call statements violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because they were testimonial, and (2) the trial court erred by allowing EMT Liedl to offer opinion testimony as lay rather than excluding it as unnoticed expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of emergency-call statements (Confrontation Clause) | Statements were nontestimonial because primary purpose was to obtain aid during an ongoing emergency; operator questions sought present-danger info. | Call was non-emergency/non-9-1-1, recounted past events, caller had time to call others, and questioning was structured indicating testimonial purpose. | Admission proper: statements were nontestimonial; primary purpose was to secure help for an ongoing emergency. |
| EMT’s opinion testimony (lay vs. expert) | Liedl’s opinions about how injuries occurred were admissible as lay opinion based on her perceptions and experience; she was not presented as an expert. | An EMT is an expert requiring Rule 702 notice; opinion about injury causation required expert qualification. | Even assuming error in admitting the testimony, any error was harmless: verdict supported by call recording, officer observations, photos, and Lee’s own admissions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes testimonial statements trigger Confrontation Clause protections)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements based on primary purpose and ongoing emergency)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (clarifies primary-purpose inquiry and relevance of emergency context)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (primary-purpose test focuses on whether statements create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony)
- Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336 (Texas factors for assessing whether statements are testimonial)