Robert Nicklos Chambers, III v. State
13-14-00407-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Robert Niklos Chambers III was tried for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and injury to an elderly individual after an incident in which his mother, Joyce Pellam, sustained a swollen bump over her eye; Chambers was arrested and allegedly admitted guilt at the jail.
- At trial Pellam testified inconsistently; on cross-examination Chambers elicited testimony that her injuries were accidental (defensive theory of accident).
- The State introduced extraneous-offense evidence: a prior arrest for assaulting girlfriend Kim Kline where Chambers admitted striking her but the complainant later recanted and claimed the injury was accidental.
- Chambers objected at trial under Rules 401, 402, 403, and 404 but did not specify which 403 ground applied; the trial court permitted the extraneous-offense evidence to rebut the accident defense and instructed the jury limiting its use to intent, motive, absence of mistake or accident.
- The jury convicted Chambers on both counts and the trial court assessed concurrent 40- and 20-year sentences; Chambers appealed solely arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the extraneous-offense evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence under Rule 404(b) | State: evidence was admissible to rebut defense of accident and to show intent/absence of mistake | Chambers: evidence only showed character conformity and improper propensity evidence; not unique modus operandi | Court: admissible — defendant opened the door by asserting accident; evidence relevant to intent and absence of mistake; within zone of reasonable disagreement |
| Exclusion under Rule 403 (prejudice vs. probative value) | Chambers: evidence was unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | State: probative value outweighed prejudice; trial judge’s limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Court: Chamber's general 403 objection failed to preserve error because he did not specify which 403 ground applied; therefore 403 claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (standard of review for admission of extraneous-offense evidence)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (proponent must show relevance apart from character conformity; presumption that probative value exceeds prejudice)
- Owens v. State, 827 S.W.2d 911 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (extraneous acts may show modus operandi/system)
- Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (extraneous-offense evidence admissible to rebut defensive theories presented at trial)
- Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (rebuttal use of extraneous-offense evidence)
- Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (limiting instruction can render extraneous-offense evidence harmless)
- Checo v. State, 402 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (general Rule 403 objection insufficient to preserve error)
- Knight v. State, 457 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App. —El Paso 2015) (defendant opening the door permits State rebuttal)