Rodarrion D. Armstrong v. State
09-15-00244-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Appellant Rodarrion D. Armstrong was tried by jury and convicted of murder; punishment assessed at 25 years' imprisonment.
- During the guilt/innocence phase, after the State rested, the court asked defense counsel whether the defense would call witnesses; counsel conferred with Armstrong and then announced "We rest."
- Armstrong did not object at trial to the court's repeated inquiry; he later filed a motion for new trial asserting the court improperly "challenged" defense counsel's decision to rest in front of the jury.
- Trial court denied the motion for new trial and later issued findings that the repeated inquiry was intended only to allow consultation and clarify whether the defense would call witnesses.
- On appeal, Armstrong argued the court's comment violated article 38.05 (judicial comment on evidence) and deprived him of a fair trial; the court reviewed the denial of the motion under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's repeated inquiry about calling witnesses constituted an improper comment on the evidence requiring reversal or a new trial | Armstrong: The court "challenged" counsel's decision to rest before the jury, diminishing defense credibility and violating article 38.05; he was probably prejudiced | State/Trial Court: The question simply sought clarification and time for counsel to consult the defendant; it was not a comment on evidence or opinion of the case | Court affirmed: No timely objection was made; error waived absent fundamental error, and the comment did not rise to fundamental/egregious harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial is abuse of discretion)
- Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (defer to trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations)
- Quinn v. State, 958 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellate review principles for trial-court factual findings)
- Moore v. State, 275 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve complaint about judicial remarks)
- Ganther v. State, 187 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d) (failure to object to court comments waives error absent fundamental error)
- Villareal v. State, 116 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (unpreserved error deemed waived unless egregious/fundamental)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for egregious harm/fundamental error)
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (court remarks made to clear confusion or control proceedings do not ordinarily constitute fundamental error)