Robert Jeffery Liller v. State
08-15-00125-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015Background
- Appellant Robert Jeffery Liller was convicted by a jury of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Appeal timely filed.
- At trial, a deputy (Enriquez) arrived 10–15 minutes after a call and found the victim (Mr. Mull) "very angry, very agitated, and upset."
- Deputy Enriquez testified the victim was still excited and had to be verbally calmed; the deputy recounted statements the victim made about the incident.
- The trial court admitted the victim's out-of-court statement as an excited utterance over defense objection; the victim later testified to the same statements at trial without defense objection.
- The trial court also overruled an objection to the victim saying his reason for testifying was that the defendant would "end up doing this to somebody else," the court treating it as the witness's personal reason for testifying rather than speculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Liller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim's out-of-court statement as an excited utterance | Statement admissible: startling event occurred; victim was dominated by excitement; statement related to the event | Statement not an excited utterance (argues insufficient indicia of spontaneity/domination by excitement) | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admission upheld |
| Admissibility of victim's statement about defendant "doing this to somebody else" (alleged speculation) | Statement is the witness's personal reason for testifying based on personal knowledge, not forbidden speculation | Statement is speculative about future dangerousness and should be excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion; statement admissible as reason for testifying |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (definition of abuse of discretion: decision outside zone of reasonable disagreement)
- Couchman v. State, 3 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (elements and rationale for excited-utterance exception)
- Wood v. State, 18 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (timing between event and statement when evaluating excited utterance)
- Bondurant v. State, 956 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997) (excited utterance may be admissible even when elicited by questioning)
- Reyes v. State, 48 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2001) (factors relevant to excited-utterance analysis)