Raymond Anthony Washington v. State
05-13-01251-CR
| Tex. App. | May 20, 2015Background
- Raymond Washington was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to 33 years; he appealed from a capital-murder indictment and conviction of the lesser-included offense of murder.
- Facts: Washington and co-defendant Daniel Ramsour (17 at time of offense) were involved in a drug transaction where Ramsour shot Andre Currier; eyewitness Nelson Snider identified Washington as present, armed with a knife, who took the marijuana and helped flee the scene.
- Ramsour was separately charged with capital murder; defense theory emphasized Ramsour as the shooter and raised the legal impossibility that a 17-year-old could receive a death-penalty-equivalent punishment.
- At trial the prosecutor twice described both men as charged with capital murder; defense sought to elicit or proffer testimony that a 17-year-old cannot be prosecuted/subjected to the Texas capital sentencing scheme. The court excluded such evidence and granted a motion in limine preventing mention of Ramsour’s possible sentencing consequences.
- Washington did not contemporaneously object on constitutional grounds (right to present a complete defense) to preserve that claim for appeal.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding the exclusion was not reversible: (1) Washington forfeited any constitutional-complete-defense claim by failing to object at trial; (2) even on the merits evidence about Ramsour’s prosecutability would not be a legal defense under Texas Penal Code § 7.03; and (3) any error was nonconstitutional and harmless (Washington was acquitted of capital murder and received a 33-year sentence within the statutory murder range).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of evidence that a 17‑year‑old co-defendant could not be prosecuted for capital murder denied Washington his right to present a complete defense | Excluding evidence about Ramsour’s inability to be prosecuted for capital murder left jurors with a false impression and prevented Washington from fully defending himself as a party | Evidence about the co-defendant’s prosecutability is irrelevant; even if true, Texas law allows conviction of a party regardless of disposition of the principal’s case; exclusion was proper and non‑harmful | Affirmed. Washington forfeited a constitutional claim by not objecting at trial; §7.03 bars that evidence as a defense; any error was nonconstitutional and harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (right to present a complete defense is subject to preservation/forfeiture rules)
- Ex parte Thompson, 179 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (acquittal or disposition of a principal does not preclude conviction of an accomplice)
- Schutz v. State, 63 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (standard for assessing nonconstitutional error and reversal)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors)