Robertson, Anthony Boyd
PD-0998-15
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- Robertson was convicted of family-violence assault (repeat offender) and sentenced to 14 years; appeal to the Third Court of Appeals affirmed; petition seeks discretionary review on admissibility of hearsay.
- Complainant Melissa Beatty gave multiple out-of-court statements after an alleged assault: to friend Florence Briseno shortly after arriving, to APD Officer Russell Rose within a few hours, to Victim Services counselor Stephanie Burgess about prior abuse roughly an hour later, and to Officer Jason Castillo the following afternoon.
- At trial Beatty testified inconsistently, admitting she had initiated the fight; defense argued earlier out-of-court statements were hearsay not within excited-utterance exception.
- Trial court admitted the statements (Burgess with limiting instruction); defense objected. The Third Court of Appeals upheld admission, finding no abuse of discretion and treating emotional demeanor and other factors as supporting excited-utterance rulings; harmlessness applied where applicable.
- Petitioner (Robertson) argues the court of appeals substituted focus on Beatty’s emotional demeanor for the controlling inquiry: whether circumstances showed she lacked opportunity for conscious reflection (the essence of the excited-utterance exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robertson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Admissibility of Beatty's statements as excited utterances | Court of appeals improperly focused on emotional demeanor rather than whether circumstances precluded reflection | Predicate showed injuries, emotional state, and temporal proximity; trial court within discretion; limiting instruction applied for Burgess | Third Court of Appeals: admission not an abuse of discretion for Rose and Briseno; Castillo borderline but harmless if error; Burgess admissible for non-hearsay purpose with limiting instruction |
| 2. Prosecutorial misconduct for sequencing evidence | Prosecutor misled court by presenting witness order that hid the 최초 statements, affecting predicate; preserved for review | Defense failed to timely object; issue not preserved | Court: claim not preserved; overruled |
| 3. Admission of officer opinion testimony about witness truthfulness | Statements about complainant's truthfulness improperly invaded credibility | Officer demeanor-based opinions were lay impressions; objections untimely or harmless given record | Court: error not preserved or harmless; overruled |
| 4. Admission of officer testimony opining about defendants generally making cover stories | Such testimony improperly opines on credibility of class of defendants | Testimony characterized as investigatory observation/opinion based on experience, admissible as lay opinion; harmless even if improper | Court: within zone of reasonable disagreement; overruled |
| 5. Admission of extraneous-offense details without specific notice | State failed to give required Rule 404(b) notice of underlying details of prior act (DeJesus) | Defense did not timely and specifically object at trial; issue waived | Court: error not preserved; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589 (Tex. Crim. App.) (excited-utterance hinges on whether statement resulted from impulse rather than reason and reflection)
- Apolinar v. State, 155 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App.) (excited-utterance admissible where declarant lacked meaningful opportunity to reflect due to unconsciousness/medication)
- McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. Crim. App.) (child outcry admissible when circumstances show lack of conscious reflection despite passage of time)
- Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. Crim. App.) (emotional state alone insufficient; focus is on capacity for reflection)
- Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. Crim. App.) (no single factor dispositive for excited-utterance analysis)