Tadarrowl Derone Carson v. State
05-14-00595-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- Carson was indicted for failure to stop and render aid after a July 1, 2013 collision that seriously injured Ebony Hicks; jurors deadlocked on a related aggravated-assault count and a mistrial was declared on that charge.
- Witnesses placed a fast-moving Chrysler at the scene; one witness smelled marijuana and saw the car "peel off" from a stoplight moments before a violent collision.
- After the crash a bystander (Wilson) saw a black male exit the damaged Chrysler, noticed smoke and a drug odor, and watched the man run away; Wilson later reported the clothing and running direction to police.
- Officer Carranza located and detained appellant a short distance away matching the radio description: black male, gray/white T-shirt, black shorts, sweaty, muddy shoes, breathing hard; appellant denied driving the car but said the renter was his fiancée; a woman repeatedly calling appellant said he was her fiancé and that she drove the car.
- Police found a crack pipe in the Chrysler and officers and witnesses testified to the smell/smoke of marijuana coming from the vehicle; Hicks suffered serious injuries and required hospitalization.
- At punishment the jury assessed ten years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine; the trial-court judgment misidentified the statute and omitted the fine.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Carson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence that Carson operated the vehicle involved in the accident | Cumulative circumstantial evidence (witness descriptions, appellant's location, clothing, mud/sweating, phone call identifying renter/driver) supports a reasonable inference Carson was the fleeing driver | Description was too vague and no witness directly identified Carson as the driver at trial | Evidence was sufficient; jury could reasonably infer Carson was the fleeing driver — point overruled |
| Admissibility of extraneous evidence (marijuana smell, crack pipe) during guilt/innocence | The smell and paraphernalia were res gestae, probative of identity and state of mind (recklessness), and probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction given | Evidence was unduly prejudicial under Tex. R. Evid. 403 and should have been excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible and balancing factors favored admission — point overruled |
| Correctness of judgment language and omission of fine (State cross-point) | The written judgment should be modified to reflect the correct statute (Tex. Transp. Code §550.021) and the $10,000 fine assessed by the jury | (No separate defense contest noted on appeal) | Court sustained the cross-point and modified the judgment to correct the statute and add the $10,000 fine |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for assessing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (deference to jury on credibility and sufficiency review)
- Cain v. State, 958 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (trier of fact as sole judge of witness credibility)
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (same standard for circumstantial evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (consider cumulative force of evidence)
- Earls v. State, 707 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (identity may be proved circumstantially)
- Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (do not divide evidence into isolated parts on sufficiency review)
- Sorrells v. State, 343 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (consider cumulative force of all evidence, including improperly admitted)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Rule 403 balancing factors explained)
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (review of admission/exclusion of evidence)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (prejudicial effect of evidence and limiting improper inference)
- Wheeler v. State, 67 S.W.3d 879 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (inadmissible evidence’s potential to lure factfinder to improper basis)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (rule 403 reversals rare; clear abuse required)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate courts may modify judgments when record permits)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (power to reform judgment to reflect truth)