State of Texas v. Thomas, Jeremy
428 S.W.3d 99
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Vernon Keith Moses was murdered in a Houston apartment complex; multiple witnesses gave statements, and appellee's girlfriend testified; Shelita Vallery had given a police statement but did not testify at trial; defense counsel indicated he would not call Shelita despite knowledge of her statement; Shelita’s statement was available months before trial; appellee was convicted of murder and sentenced to life; appellee moved for new trial claiming substantial undisclosed exculpatory evidence; Shelita filed an affidavit claiming Carnell Meredith, not appellee, shot Moses; the trial court granted a new trial based on its assessment of Shelita’s potential testimony; on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding no valid legal basis to grant a new trial in the interest of justice; this Court granted review to resolve whether a known exculpatory witness not called constitutes a valid legal claim for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a new trial in the interest of justice be granted for failure to call a known exculpatory witness not based on ineffective assistance? | Thomas argues a valid legal claim exists. | Thomas contends no valid legal claim under Herndon; no ineffective-assistance claim pursued. | No; not a valid legal claim. |
| Whether the failure to call Shelita supports a new punishment hearing when not a guilt-phase ground? | Shelita’s testimony could affect punishment. | No valid legal basis; punishment grounds require valid legal claim. | Not a valid basis for a new punishment. |
| What standards govern granting a motion for a new trial in the interest of justice? | Movant must articulate a valid legal claim and show prejudice. | There must be a valid legal basis; mere sympathy or belief of innocence is insufficient. | Valid legal claim required; discretion bounded by law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herndon v. State, 215 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (establishes requirements for granting a new trial in the interest of justice; valid legal claim, evidence, and prejudice standard)
- Gonzales, 297 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (upheld new-trial grant under interest-of-justice theory with available exculpatory witness; distance from Herndon assessed)
- Stewart, 282 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009) (new-trial-on-punishment requires identifiable, quantifiable error; cannot grant on mere second thoughts about sentence)
- Mullins v. State, 37 Tex. 337 (1873) (historic discretion to grant new trials when ends of justice not attained (early precedent))
- Gonzales v. State, 855 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (exculpatory witness at sentencing; limited value after Herndon; exculpatory evidence known but not presented can be basis in some contexts (pre-Herndon discussion))