Roger Evan Garrett v. State
08-13-00323-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 4, 2015Background
- In January 1977 Chester Garrett was found dead in his Volkswagen from blunt force trauma and multiple stab wounds; his ex-wife Lisbeth and son Roger Evan Garrett (Appellant) were suspects but a 1977 grand jury no-billed Appellant and the case went cold.
- Over ensuing decades Appellant allegedly made multiple extrajudicial confessions to three people (Debra Rodriguez in 1978, his brother Patrick in 1990, and Theresa Heffelfinger in 1991); those statements were later reported to police in the 1990s–2013, with Patrick finally giving a written statement in 2013.
- Investigators later discovered evidence of post-murder cleaning (muriatic acid, wet garage floor, driveway stain) and other circumstantial facts placing Appellant and Lisbeth at home when Chester arrived the evening of January 3, 1977.
- Appellant was tried in 2013, convicted of murder by a jury, and sentenced to 40 years and a $5,000 fine; he appeals raising four principal issues.
- The court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence (identity), Confrontation Clause challenge to medical examiner testimony based on an autopsy report prepared by a different examiner, pre-indictment delay/due process, and alleged improper prosecutorial jury argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garrett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — identity | Confessions to three witnesses plus corroborating circumstantial evidence prove Appellant committed the murder | Confessions are unreliable and witnesses lack credibility; evidence insufficient to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Conviction upheld; extrajudicial confessions constitute direct evidence and, with corroborating facts, suffice for identity |
| Confrontation — medical examiner relied on another’s autopsy report | Expert may rely on prior autopsy and photos to form opinion; such use is non-testimonial under Williams | Admission of another examiner’s autopsy statements violates Crawford/Confrontation Clause | No violation; expert testimony based on report used to explain opinion, not offered for truth; admission proper |
| Pre-indictment delay — due process | Delay (36 years) prejudiced defense; indictment should be dismissed | Delay resulted from investigative pauses; defendant must show actual prejudice and bad-faith tactical delay, which are absent | Motion to dismiss denied; appellant failed to prove actual prejudice or that delay was for bad faith tactical advantage |
| Prosecutor closing argument | Prosecutor’s comments summarized testimony and reasonable inferences, pointing to corroboration | Prosecutor improperly suggested rules of evidence bar testimony and implied special knowledge; request for mistrial warranted | Objection sustained and jury instructed to disregard; mistrial denied as no incurable prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (2012) (expert may rely on out-of-court material to form and explain opinion without triggering Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements absent prior cross‑examination or declarant unavailability)
- Krizan-Wilson v. State, 354 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (pre‑indictment delay due process framework; must show actual prejudice and bad faith)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (discusses statutes of limitation and pre‑indictment delay; actual prejudice required)
- United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (investigatory delays may be permissible absent proof of bad faith tactical delay)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (applies Jackson standard and explains appellate sufficiency review)
- Emery v. State, 881 S.W.2d 702 (extrajudicial confession alone can establish identity)
- Gribble v. State, 808 S.W.2d 65 (extrajudicial confession considerations and corpus delicti/corroboration principles)