Scott, Johnny Calvin
PD-0850-15
| Tex. App. | Jul 10, 2015Background
- Johnny Calvin Scott (TDCJ No. 1927796) filed a pro se motion seeking a 90-day extension to file a petition for discretionary review, asserting he is indigent and lacks access to the trial record.
- Scott was tried in a capital, life-without-parole case and contends he pleaded not guilty and maintains his innocence.
- He argues the trial court committed reversible error by refusing a self-defense jury instruction, depriving him of a defensive issue before the jury.
- Scott asserts the State played a three-hour taped interrogation that was edited and contained repeated hearsay and opinion testimony by detectives (e.g., calling him a "cold-blooded killer"), which he claims prejudiced the jury.
- He contends defense counsel’s objections to the officers’ opinion/hearsay testimony under Texas Rules 801–802 were overruled, and that the interrogation video could not be adequately impeached or tested by cross-examination as presented.
- Scott requests the record (reporter’s record and clerk’s transcripts) to research and perfect a discretionary review petition and says appellate briefing and the court of appeals’ memorandum opinion reference the reporter’s record.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give self-defense instruction | Trial court wrongly refused defensive instruction; entitled to jury submission on any defensive issue raised by evidence | (Not in motion record) presumably that instruction was not supported by law or evidence | Motion asserts reversible error and requests new trial; no court ruling in this filing |
| Admission of detectives' opinion/hearsay from interrogation video | Officer statements were inadmissible hearsay/opinion and highly prejudicial; violated Rules 801–802 | (Not in motion record) likely contends statements were admissible or non-hearsay or permissible for impeachment/context | Motion argues abuse of discretion in admission; no ruling included here |
| Use of edited interrogation video | Editing created misleading impression and emphasized prejudicial officer commentary; deprived Scott of fair trial | (Not in motion record) State would argue editing was proper and not prejudicial | Scott requests relief based on prejudice; no ruling in motion |
| Indigency and access to trial record for PDR | Scott is indigent, cannot obtain reporter’s record/transcripts, needs extension to secure records and prepare petition | State/court may rely on existing appellate record or contest entitlement to free copies | Scott requests 90-day extension to obtain record; filing is a motion for extension (outcome not included) |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Texas Crim. App.) (standard for assessing harm from jury-charge error)
- Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defendant entitled to instruction on every defensive theory raised by evidence)
- Moon v. State, 607 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same principle on defensive issues)
- Garcia v. State, 605 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defensive issues must be submitted when raised by evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 170 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
- Warren v. State, 565 S.W.2d 931 (Tex. Crim. App.) (same)
- Esparza v. State, 520 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. Crim. App.) (evidence and submission of defensive issues)
- Shaw v. State, 510 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defense submission precedent)
- Carter v. State, 515 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defensive instruction precedent)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings)
- Black v. State, 634 S.W.2d 356 (Tex. App. — Dallas) (officer competence to opine on truthfulness)
- Taylor v. State, 774 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.) (officers may not testify they disbelieve accused)
- King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App.) (role of statements by interrogating officers)
- Kirk v. State, 199 S.W.3d 467 (Tex. App.) (relevance of interrogating officers' statements depends on defendant's responses)