Steele, Alice Annette, PD-0442-15

Background

In February 2008, 14‑month‑old K.S. suffered a massive subdural hematoma while in Alice Steele’s sole care; she later died from complications. Steele gave varying explanations (choking on a Lego, later bumping the child’s head on a doorjamb) and was indicted for intentionally or knowingly injuring a child; the jury convicted of the lesser included offense of reckless injury and sentenced Steele to 20 years.
The trial featured dueling medical experts: State experts testified the injury required a severe, high‑force event and classified the death a homicide; defense experts opined a minor impact could cause the hemorrhage.
At guilt/innocence closing, the prosecutor (1) argued the State need not prove the exact instrument or manner beyond the indictment’s description, (2) attacked the credibility of defense experts and suggested the defense offered no credible objective evidence. Defense objected, claiming misstatement of law and burden‑shifting. The court overruled objections.
At punishment, the victim’s mother testified she ‘‘will never know what happened’’ to her child; the prosecutor asked follow‑ups suggesting that this was what she wanted to know most. Defense objected, arguing these were comments on Steele’s failure to testify; the court overruled and allowed a running objection.
Steele appealed, raising (1) improper jury argument about manner/means, (2) burden‑shifting/arguing defendant must produce credible evidence, and (3) punishment‑phase questioning that allegedly commented on Steele’s right to remain silent. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed. Steele petitioned discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Steele)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal improperly removed requirement to prove manner/means of offense	Prosecutor: rebutting defense—law allows conviction without proving the specific instrument; argument summarized evidence and drew reasonable inferences	Steele: argument misstated law and effectively removed the State’s requirement to prove that she struck the child as alleged	Court of Appeals: No reversible error; prosecutor’s remarks were reasonable response to defense and not a misstatement of elements; any error harmless under Mosley standard
Whether prosecutor shifted burden by arguing Steele had to "bring some credible evidence"	Prosecutor: attacking credibility of defense experts and responding to defense plea that State lacked objective proof; proper to argue lack of credible support for defense theory	Steele: comment shifted burden to defendant to produce evidence and violated law prohibiting burden shifting	Court of Appeals: Overruling objection was proper; context showed argument challenged credibility of defense experts and answered defense argument; any hypothetical error did not contribute to conviction under constitutional harmless‑error review
Whether prosecutor’s punishment‑phase questioning of victim’s mother impermissibly commented on Steele’s failure to testify	State: questioning probed victim’s mother’s grief and her statement that she ‘‘will never know what happened’’; did not necessarily or naturally point to defendant’s silence—could refer to conflicting expert opinions or disbelief of explanations already given	Steele: because only Steele was present at the injury, the follow‑up questions were a call for testimony only she could provide and therefore an improper comment on her right not to testify	Court of Appeals: Held the prosecutor’s questions were not of such character that the jury would necessarily and naturally take them as a comment on defendant’s failure to testify; alternative reasonable inferences existed (experts conflicted; mother disbelieved explanations) and issue overruled

Key Cases Cited

Madden v. State, 799 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (prosecutorial argument that calls for testimony only defendant can supply violates right against self‑incrimination)
Randolph v. State, 353 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (test for whether language would necessarily and naturally be taken as a comment on defendant’s failure to testify)
Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (permissible areas of jury argument and latitude to draw reasonable inferences)
Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (standard for assessing harm from improper jury argument)
Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (medical expert testimony and limits of required defense evidence)
Renteria v. State, 977 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (closing argument that states law contrary to jury charge is improper)