Stafford, Curtis Roscoe
PD-1619-14
| Tex. App. | Feb 19, 2015Background
- Curt is convicted of aggravated sexual assault; jury assessed 22 years. Trial began Feb 2013; conviction affirmed by Second Court of Appeals (Nov 13, 2014). Petitioner seeks discretionary review.
- During the State's case-in-chief the prosecution elicited testimony from B.C. about a 1985 incident in which Stafford allegedly robbed and sexually assaulted her; defendant had a 1985 aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court admitted the extraneous-offense details over defense objection and gave a limiting instruction.
- After that testimony, Stafford testified in his own defense and, in answering the extraneous-offense evidence, disclosed facts including prior paid-sex acts, drug and alcohol use while on parole, attendance at sex-offender counseling, AA/NA, and anger-control classes.
- The State argued the extraneous evidence was admissible on non-character grounds (e.g., identity, intent, absence of mistake) and that Stafford opened the door by challenging the complainant’s credibility.
- The court of appeals acknowledged preservation of error but found any error harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) because Stafford’s own expansive testimony ameliorated the prejudice; Stafford now argues that admitting the extraneous-offense evidence forced him to testify and that his responsive testimony must be excluded from harmless-error analysis under Maynard v. State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stafford) | Defendant's Argument (State / Ct. of Appeals) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s testimony — given only because the trial court admitted extraneous-offense details — may be considered in harmless-error review | Testimony was compelled to meet improper extraneous-offense evidence; under Maynard, defendant’s responsive testimony should not be used to find the admission harmless | Stafford’s direct testimony was expansive and introduced comparable or greater prejudicial matter, so any error was harmless under Rule 44.2(b) | Court of Appeals: any error was harmless because Stafford’s own testimony (including admissions about sexual history, drugs, counseling) diminished the prejudicial effect of the 1985 testimony |
| Whether the trial court erred in admitting details of the 1985 sexual assault (not resulting in conviction) | Admission of detailed extraneous sexual-assault facts was prejudicial and remote; only the prior conviction (not underlying sexual-assault details) should have been admitted | Admission was within trial court discretion given relevance to intent/identity and defendant’s cross-examination of complainant | Court of Appeals did not reach definitive abuse-of-discretion reversal; it concluded any error was harmless |
| Whether vigorous cross-examination opening the door to extraneous-act evidence violates the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation | If cross-examining complainant allows admission of prejudicial extraneous acts, it chills confrontation and is unconstitutional | Complaint was not preserved at trial; appellate review of this constitutional claim is forfeited | Court of Appeals: constitutional challenge forfeited for lack of timely objection; not reviewed |
| Proper harmless-error standard to apply when extraneous-offense evidence is admitted and defendant testifies in response | Apply Maynard: defendant’s rebuttal testimony elicited because of trial-court error should not be counted to cure the error; reversal required if grave doubt remains | Apply Rule 44.2(b) with consideration of the whole record (including defendant’s testimony) to assess substantial effect on verdict | Court of Appeals applied Rule 44.2(b) and assessed the whole record (including defendant’s testimony) and found the error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Maynard v. State, 685 S.W.2d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (defendant’s compelled rebuttal testimony to improperly admitted extraneous offense evidence does not waive error for harmless-error analysis)
- Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (standard for appellate harmless-error review under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b))
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors and approach for assessing substantial or injurious effect on verdict)
- Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (noting inherent prejudice of extraneous-offense evidence)
- Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (appellate review and harmless-error principles)
- Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (error is not waived when defendant later testifies to meet or explain improperly admitted evidence)