Polk, Artis Leon Jr.
PD-0854-15
Tex. App.Oct 8, 2015Background
- On Thanksgiving 2012 Artis Leon Polk Jr. (appellant) shot and killed Charles Knighten outside an apartment after an earlier heated encounter; witnesses testified Knighten displayed a BB gun, others said he was walking away and unarmed when Polk shot him multiple times.
- Polk claimed self-defense/defense of others and later testified he retrieved a rifle believing Knighten posed an imminent deadly threat; he also had multiple prior felony convictions and pleaded true to repeat-offender notice.
- A jury convicted Polk of murder and unlawful possession of a firearm and assessed 99 years for murder and 20 years for the firearm offense.
- Polk appealed raising five principal claims: (1) exclusion of evidence of Knighten’s prior violent acts; (2) exclusion of Wright’s testimony about threats (hearsay); (3) improper admission/detailing of Polk’s prior aggravated robbery despite a stipulation; (4) factual insufficiency re: sudden passion; and (5) prosecutorial misconduct in closing and preservation of objections.
- The Second Court of Appeals (Fort Worth) reviewed de novo/abuse-of-discretion and harm under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) where applicable, and affirmed the convictions in a memorandum opinion on April 23, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Polk's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of deceased’s prior violent acts to show first aggressor/state of mind | Torres and related CCA authority permit admission of prior violent acts relevant to the confrontation; exclusion misapplied because acts were part of events leading to the killing | At time of rulings record lacked evidence that Knighten was outwardly aggressive at the moment of killing or that Polk knew of prior acts when he shot; therefore trial court did not abuse discretion | Court of Appeals: no abuse of discretion — evidence properly excluded at time of rulings because witnesses indicated Knighten was walking away and empty‑handed when shot |
| Exclusion of Wright’s testimony (statements on phone / threats) — hearsay/excited utterance | Wright’s proffered testimony would show threats, her state of mind and Polk’s state of mind; threats/verbal acts or excited utterances are admissible | Trial court sustained hearsay objections but admissible similar evidence of mental state was admitted through other testimony | Any error was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b): Wright and Polk provided similar testimony about fear and anger, so substantial rights not affected |
| Admission / detailing of Polk’s prior aggravated robbery after stipulation | Polk argued stipulation should suffice and further details unfairly prejudiced jury (Old Chief principle) | State and court: Polk preserved only hearsay objection at trial; appellate complaints do not match trial objection so error not preserved; also Polk later testified to convictions | Preservation failure; even if error, Polk later testified about convictions so no harm shown — issue overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence that killing was under sudden passion (punishment phase) | Polk contended his testimony showed sudden passion and adequate cause (fear of imminent deadly force) so punishment finding/denial of reduction was against great weight | State presented eyewitness testimony that Knighten was walking away, Polk postured and re‑entered with rifle, and continued firing — jury could disbelieve Polk | Court: factual sufficiency standard not met for reversal; jury rationally rejected sudden passion; verdict not manifestly unjust |
| Prosecutorial closing argument / preservation of objections | Polk argued prosecutor improperly appealed to Polk’s character and prior crimes and mischaracterized facts; trial court’s overruling and appellate court’s finding of waiver was incorrect | Court: many objections were not renewed or running objection not obtained; some challenged arguments were reasonable deductions from evidence so no abuse | Most complaints forfeited for failure to preserve; preserved complaints reviewed and rejected where prosecutor’s argument was summation or reasonable deduction — issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Mozon v. State, 991 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (victim’s character for violence admissible to show first aggressor and to show defendant’s state of mind)
- Torres v. State, 117 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (timing and relevance rules for admitting deceased’s extraneous violent acts to raise self‑defense issue)
- Beecham v. State, 580 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (distinguishing use of victim’s prior violent acts to show defendant’s reasonableness vs. to prove deceased was first aggressor)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (stipulation to prior conviction may avoid prejudice from detailed proof of prior crime)
- Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation and standards for objecting to jury argument)