Robert Watson v. State
421 S.W.3d 186
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- In April 2011 a confidential informant (CI), Melvin Bruns, agreed to perform controlled buys for the Guadalupe County Narcotics Division; Bruns wore an audio/video recording device during a purchase from Robert Watson.
- Officers searched Bruns and his vehicle before the buy, fitted him with the recorder, surveilled him to and from Watson’s residence, and retrieved the substance after the transaction.
- The videotape (played to the jury without audio) showed an exchange and a scale; lab testing later confirmed ~1.83 grams of cocaine.
- Bruns did not testify at trial (he was unavailable); the State relied on officer testimony, the silent video, photos, the seized cocaine, and the lab report.
- Watson was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to 10 years; he appealed asserting errors about authentication/chain of custody, accomplice corroboration instructions, an article 38.23 tampering instruction, and a Confrontation Clause violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of cocaine, photos, lab report (chain of custody) | State failed to tie the seized/tested cocaine directly to Watson; chain gaps required exclusion | Officers and continuous video provided sufficient links; gaps go to weight not admissibility | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence authenticated and admissible |
| Authentication/admissibility of silent videotape | Video could be unauthenticated or tampered with; raises chain concerns | Officers laid proper predicate; continuous recording and officer corroboration authenticated it | Video properly authenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 901; admissible |
| Corroboration under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.141 (accomplice/CI testimony) | CI’s out‑of‑court role required corroboration and jury instruction even if CI didn’t testify | Bingham: article 38.14/38.141 apply to in‑court testimony; no in‑court accomplice testimony here | Article 38.141 inapplicable because Bruns did not provide in‑court testimony; no instruction required |
| Article 38.23 instruction re: tampering and Confrontation Clause (silent video) | Discrepancies in money/weight created affirmative evidence of tampering; silent video contains CI statements and is testimonial | No affirmative evidence of tampering; silent video is non‑testimonial/surveillance and not a "statement" under Rule 801 | No article 38.23 instruction required (no affirmative tampering evidence); silent video not testimonial or a statement — no Confrontation Clause violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of out‑of‑court testimonial statements by absent witnesses absent unavailability and prior cross‑examination)
- Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (silent videotape treated as collection of photographs for authentication)
- Ballard v. State, 23 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000) (continuous CI video authenticated where officers corroborated contents and no tampering shown)
- Bingham v. State, 913 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (article 38.14 construed to cover only in‑court testimony of accomplices)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; gaps in chain affect weight, not admissibility)