Quadreuy Flowers v. State
438 S.W.3d 96
Tex. App.2014Background
- Victim Darius Carter was fatally shot in a bedroom; Dusty Duckett (girlfriend of appellant Quadreuy Flowers) identified Flowers as the shooter and testified Flowers struck and threatened her after the gun jammed. Jessica McGraw corroborated that Duckett fled to her apartment while Flowers chased her.
- Flowers told police he had been with Tevin Willis at the time of the killing; when asked for Willis’s number he said it was saved as “T-Will.” Officers accessed Flowers’s cell phone, photographed the call-history, and the State introduced screenshots showing a call from Flowers to Willis at a time Flowers claimed to be with Willis. Willis testified Flowers was not with him and that Flowers confessed in a phone call.
- Flowers sought to impeach Duckett with a prior inconsistent out-of-court statement allegedly overheard by Kelisha Aubrey; the trial court excluded that evidence for failure to lay the Rule 613 predicate.
- Flowers objected that police exceeded the scope of his consent when they viewed and photographed the phone’s call history rather than limiting the search to the contacts list; the trial court admitted the call-history screenshots and granted a running objection.
- Jury convicted Flowers of murder; punishment 99 years’ imprisonment and trial court assessed $249 in court costs (appeal resulted in modification to $234).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flowers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior inconsistent statement under Tex. R. Evid. 613(a) | Duckett made prior inconsistent statements; Flowers laid predicate for impeachment and exclusion deprived him of impeachment evidence | State: Flowers failed to identify person/time/place required by Rule 613(a); statement was hearsay and predicate was inadequate | Court: Exclusion affirmed — Flowers failed to identify to whom the statement was made (no proper predicate); no constitutional error because excluded testimony was not core to defense |
| Scope of consent to search cell phone | Consent was limited to obtaining Willis’s telephone number (contacts only); viewing call-history exceeded scope and violated Fourth Amendment | State: Objective scope included contacts or call-history; photographic capture of call log was within consent and plain-view seizure | Court: Officers acted within objectively reasonable scope (contacts and call-history reasonably encompassed); even if error, admission of call-history was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Assessment of court costs | Trial record lacks bill of costs; assessed $249 is unsupported | State: Record can be supplemented with bill of costs; court of appeals may order supplementation | Held: Sua sponte supplementation requested; record supported $234 in costs — judgment modified to $234 and otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntary consent standard for searches)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent judged objectively by expressed object)
- State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App.) (reasonable expectation of privacy in cell phones)
- Miller v. State, 393 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Crim. App.) (plain-view doctrine and consensual search principles)
- Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App.) (factors for harmless-error review of constitutional evidence errors)
- Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate supplementation of record with bill of costs)
- Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App.) (harmless-error standards for illegally admitted evidence)