Roderick Morrison v. State
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 11392
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Morrison and an accomplice, Terrence Smith, robbed a car in their apartment complex; Morrison fired a gun at close range, killing Jose Munoz-Bosquez. Morrison later admitted the shooting in recorded jail calls.
- Morrison was indicted for capital murder (murder during robbery). At trial defense conceded Morrison shot the victim but argued lack of intent to kill, seeking conviction for the lesser-included offense of murder.
- During voir dire Morrison had disruptive outbursts over two days; the trial court removed him to a holding cell during the second day, warned jurors he would remain there for the remainder of trial, and allowed him to listen by speaker.
- Morrison was excluded from jury selection and the entire guilt-innocence phase (three days); he was present for punishment. Defense counsel did not object to removal and continued a strategy seeking a murder conviction rather than acquittal.
- The jury convicted Morrison of murder (not capital murder). The trial court sentenced him to 60 years; the written judgment mistakenly referenced capital murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal before jury selection: statutory right under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 33.03 | Removal was justified by disruptive conduct and prior mistrial risk | Removal before jury selection violates absolute statutory right to be present until jury selected | Court: Statutory right violated (appellate concession and authority) |
| Permanent exclusion without offer to return: Sixth Amendment right to be present | Removal was based on repeated outbursts and competency/malingering concerns; trial court used reasonable alternatives and provided speaker access | Trial court failed to offer opportunity to reclaim the right to be present, in violation of Allen | Court: Constitutional right violated because no opportunity to reclaim presence was afforded |
| Harmless-error analysis for constitutional/statutory violation | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defense strategy sought a murder conviction, jury convicted of murder, and evidence of guilt was overwhelming | Exclusion prejudiced Morrison’s ability to assist counsel and could have produced negative inference | Court: Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Rule 44.2(a) given defense strategy, verdict aligned with that strategy, and strong evidence of murder |
| Clerical error in judgment (charge name) | Judgment should reflect actual verdict (murder) | Same | Court: Modify written judgment to reflect conviction for murder under Penal Code §19.02 |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (trial court may remove disruptive defendant but defendant must be allowed to reclaim presence)
- Miller v. State, 692 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (Article 33.03 gives defendant absolute right to be present until jury selection is complete)
- Sumrell v. State, 326 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (defendant who voluntarily absents after voir dire waives Sixth Amendment presence right; contrast with statutory protection)
- Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (harmless-error framework applied to deprivation of presence)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for assessing whether error contributed to conviction)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may reform clerical errors to conform judgment to oral pronouncement)