Snowden, Rion Pheal
2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1321
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Snowden was convicted by a jury of family-violence assault on Lavondra Jennings, who was about 38 weeks pregnant with Snowden's child.
- The jury sentenced Snowden to two years' imprisonment.
- The Fifth Court of Appeals reversed, holding prosecutorial remarks commenting on Snowden's failure to testify violated his rights and could have contributed to conviction or punishment.
- The SPA petitioned for discretionary review to reassess Harris-era harm analysis under Rule 44.2(a).
- This Court reversed the court of appeals, addressing the propriety of the Harris factors and clarifying harm analysis for constitutional errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harm standard for constitutional error | Snowden argues Harris factors should guide harm analysis under 44.2(a). | State contends some Harris factors are inapplicable under Rule 44.2(a). | Harris factors partly disavowed; harm analysis refined under Rule 44.2(a). |
| Whether the prosecutor's guilt-phase remark was a comment on privilege against self-incrimination | Comment violated Snowden's right by highlighting failure to testify. | Remark could be a legitimate summary/inference from evidence, not a pure comment on silence. | The remark was improper as to Snowden's in-court remorse but part of a permissible inference about lack of remorse at the offense. |
| Harmlessness of the error regarding conviction and punishment | Error contributed to conviction/punishment under Harris factors. | Record shows overwhelming evidence; error was not harmful beyond a reasonable doubt. | The error did not contribute to conviction or punishment beyond reasonable doubt; remand for remaining issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard applies to constitutional errors)
- Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1991) (noting balance of evidence and error contribution to verdict)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error inquiry not focused on outcome alone)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (overwhelming evidence can affect harmlessness in some contexts)
- Dickinson v. State, 685 S.W.2d 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (prosecutorial remarks on a defendant's silence are impermissible)
- Mason v. State, 322 S.W.3d 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (limits on Harris factors for Rule 44.2 analyses)
- Canales v. State, 98 S.W.3d 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (analysis of constitutional error and harmlessness with respect to state and federal rights)
- Bustamante v. State, 48 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (prosecution conduct and comment on silence cautioned)