Robison, Mark Douglas, PD-0215-15

Background

Mark Douglas Robison was indicted on three counts of possession of child pornography after a search of his IP address produced images and videos.
At trial Robison asserted an affirmative defense that he possessed the material for a bona fide educational purpose and sought to admit two books he authored explaining that defense.
The trial court sustained the State’s objections and excluded both books, preventing their admission into evidence.
Robison was convicted on all three counts; the jury assessed 10 years’ confinement and fines, with sentences probated.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed; Robison petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for discretionary review, raising two primary grounds: (1) exclusion of his books constituted constitutional error denying his right to present a defense, and (2) appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct should not always require a contemporaneous objection where misconduct rises to fundamental constitutional error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robison)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Court of Appeals / Position Challenged)
Whether excluding Robison’s books (which outlined his affirmative defense) was constitutional error requiring beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt harmlessness review	Exclusion deprived Robison of his Sixth/Fourteenth Amendment right to present a complete defense; the error is constitutional so appellate court must apply constitutional (Chapman/Holmes) harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard	Trial court properly excluded the books; any error was nonconstitutional and should be reviewed for harm to substantial rights (lesser standard)	Court of Appeals applied nonconstitutional harm review; Robison challenges that as incorrect and asks this Court to require constitutional harmlessness review when a defendant is denied the ability to present a defense
Whether prosecutorial misconduct claims always require a contemporaneous objection to avoid waiver, or whether extreme misconduct may be reviewed as fundamental error without objection	Citing Supreme Court precedent, Robison argues that when prosecutorial misconduct so infects a trial it violates due process and can be reviewed as fundamental (no contemporaneous objection required)	Lower courts apply Texas precedent (Penry, Cook, Estrada, Hajjar) requiring contemporaneous objection to preserve prosecutorial‑misconduct claims for appeal	Court of Appeals relied on contemporaneous‑objection rule; Robison argues that conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court due‑process jurisprudence and asks this Court to allow review of sufficiently egregious misconduct even when not objected to

Key Cases Cited

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant’s right to present a defense includes opportunity to introduce critical evidence)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (constitutional guarantee of meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (prosecutorial misconduct violates due process when it so infects the trial as to make the conviction a denial of due process)
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (standard for when prosecutorial remarks render a trial fundamentally unfair)
Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (jury‑argument error preservation requirements)
Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (contemporaneous‑objection waiver applied to improper argument claims)
Estrada v. State, 313 S.W.3d 274 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (failure to object in opening/closing forfeits appellate review of prosecutorial misconduct)
Cockrell v. State, 933 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (discussing waiver rules and overruling limited exceptions to contemporaneous‑objection requirement)
Parker v. Matthews, 132 S. Ct. 2148 (2012) (Supreme Court review of prosecutorial‑misconduct standards and deference to controlling precedent)