Scott Noah Santschi v. State
14-15-00771-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Cynthia Todd (complainant) and Scott Santschi (defendant) are spouses/former spouses; an altercation at Todd's family home led to charges of felony assault of a family member.
- Eyewitness and first-responder testimony described Todd crying, injured, and reporting she had been thrown into a vehicle and shoved.
- During Todd's cross-examination, defense elicited communications from Santschi (jail calls/letters, blank non-prosecution affidavits); the State then introduced a certified motion and court order revoking Santschi's jail communication privileges.
- The trial court admitted various documents (blank affidavits, envelopes, the motion and order) and fire department records; the jury convicted Santschi and the trial court sentenced him to 25 years with prior-felony enhancements.
- On appeal Santschi raised eight issues (bias/comment on weight/confrontation/stipulation to priors/hearsay objections/ineffective assistance/deadly-weapon finding), and the State cross-requested correction of the judgment to reflect pleas to enhancement paragraphs.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court admission of motion & order showed judicial partiality | Admission signaled judge had pre-judged defendant; structural error needs no contemporaneous objection | Ruling was a discretionary evidentiary admission; no clear bias shown; judicial rulings rarely establish bias | Overruled — no clear showing of bias or partiality |
| Admission of documents (affidavits, envelopes, motion/order) was an improper judicial comment tainting presumption of innocence | Admission before jury impermissibly commented on weight of evidence; fundamental error | Admission was evidentiary response to defense cross-examination; judge made no comment; distinct from Blue-type judicial comments | Overruled — not an impermissible comment on presumption of innocence |
| Admission of motion & order violated Sixth Amendment confrontation clause | Documents were testimonial hearsay and denied right to cross-examine declarant | Records are public/certified court records falling under firmly rooted hearsay/public-record exceptions and are non-testimonial | Overruled — records non-testimonial and admissible under hearsay exception |
| Trial court refused to permit stipulation to prior conviction | Defendant sought to stipulate to prior, so prior conviction evidence should be excluded during guilt/innocence | No unequivocal request or ruling in trial court to preserve issue | Overruled (not preserved) — appellant failed to present timely request/objection |
| Admission of (1) Deputy Cessna's testimony repeating Todd's statements and (2) fire department records was hearsay error | Testimony and records were inadmissible hearsay | (1) No contemporaneous objection to specific pain-question waived error; (2) business-records exception and supporting affidavit satisfied Rule 803(6) | Overruled — (1) not preserved; (2) properly admitted under business-records exception |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object/request jury instruction on extraneous-offense references | Counsel failed to timely/properly object or request curative instruction, causing prejudice | Record silent; many omissions could reflect trial strategy; appellant did not prove deficient performance or prejudice | Overruled — appellant failed Strickland burden on deficient performance/prejudice |
| Modify judgment to reflect enhancement pleas/finding | N/A (State requested correction) | Record shows appellant pled true and court found enhancements true | Granted — judgment modified to show both enhancement pleas and findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings rarely establish bias sufficient to deny fair trial)
- Blue v. State, 41 S.W.3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial judge's remarks about preferring guilty plea can vitiate presumption of innocence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements unless declarant unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumption of correctness for trial court absent clear showing of bias)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Ford v. State, 179 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (public-records/business-records exceptions may render records non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes)