340 S.W.3d 838
Tex. App.2011Background
- Reese indicted for murder of Shanika Sanford with prior felon-in-possession enhancement; jury found Reese guilty and assessed life imprisonment and a $5,000 fine; March 9–10, 2009 events at Richard Chew’s apartment involved a confrontation between Reese and Sanford; Reese pulled a gun and fired, killing Sanford; photographs of Sanford at the scene were admitted; during punishment, enhancement evidence and related testimony were presented after initial failure to read enhancement; the State later reintroduced the enhancement testimony and exhibits; the court denied relief on multiple evidentiary and instructional issues and the judgement was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of photographs of the victim | Reese | State | Court did not abuse discretion; photos not unduly prejudicial and probative value outweighed any prejudice. |
| Sudden passion instruction in punishment phase | Reese | State | Court properly denied the sudden passion instruction; no adequate cause shown. |
| Enhancement reading and reoffer at punishment | Reese | State | State not required to re-offer all pre-reading testimony; only evidence related to enhancement needed to be reintroduced. |
| Impact of pre-reading testimony on trial | Reese | State | Failure to read enhancement initially did not mandate automatic reversal; cure by later arraignment and re-offering evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallo v. State, 239 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (photographic evidence admissibility and Rule 403 balancing)
- Erazo v. State, 144 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (factors for evaluating photographic evidence; gruesomeness not sole basis for exclusion)
- Chamberlain, 998 S.W.2d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (visual evidence accompanying testimony can be highly probative)
- Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (photographs may corroborate manner of death)
- Sonnier v. State, 913 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (gruesomeness alone does not require exclusion)
- Ramirez v. State, 815 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (reversal only when probative value is small and inflammatory potential great)
- Turner v. State, 897 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (read enhancement to join issue; cure by reoffering evidence or stipulation)
- Warren v. State, 693 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (procedure for enhancement reading and reoffering evidence)
- Ex parte Sewell, 742 S.W.2d 393 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (enhancement issue joined upon plea to enhancement)
- McKinney v. State, 179 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (sudden-passion standard: some evidence suffices if credible)
- Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (sudden passion instruction must be given if any evidence supports it)