Tammy Kay Taylor v. State
06-14-00222-CR
Tex. App.Feb 26, 2015Background
- Tammy Kay Taylor was convicted at a bench trial for theft; the State presented testimony about an alleged extraneous theft from a former employer, Rupinderjit Singh.
- Singh testified Taylor, promoted to store manager, entered his office on Aug. 27, 2013 and stole about $4,000 while he was out of town; Taylor then ceased communicating and missed her shift.
- The State also presented testimony identifying stolen suitcases found at a residence where Taylor and her husband moved belongings; Taylor allegedly claimed she bought the suitcases at Goodwill for $1.50 each.
- The State sought to admit Singh’s testimony under Texas Penal Code §31.03(c)(1) (similar to Rule 404(b)) to show intent/knowledge and also requested a Hardesty inference (possession of recently stolen property with no reasonable explanation).
- Defense did not object at trial to Singh’s testimony on the grounds of insufficient proof; trial court acted as factfinder and declined to formally enter a Hardesty inference finding, treating it as part of the State’s argument.
- The State argues (on appeal) any admission error was harmless given the overall evidence and that, had the court made a Hardesty inference finding, it would have been proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous-offense testimony | Singh’s testimony should not have been admitted because State did not prove that extraneous offense beyond a reasonable doubt | Singh’s testimony was clear, addressed each theft element, and was admissible under §31.03(c)(1) to show intent/knowledge | Trial court did not err in admitting (court as factfinder could find the extraneous act proven); alternatively any error was harmless |
| Harmlessness of any admission error | Admission of extraneous offense was harmful and merits reversal | Any error was non-constitutional and harmless given the limited nature of the testimony, lack of use in closing, and other strong evidence | Error, if any, was harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b) and supporting precedent |
| Whether trial court made a Hardesty inference finding | Court improperly applied a Hardesty inference without proper predicate | Court did not make a formal Hardesty finding; it treated the doctrine as part of the State’s argument | Trial court declined to make a Hardesty inference finding; no reversible error for making one because predicate was supported |
| Validity of Hardesty predicate | Predicate lacking because property was stored in a location allowing equal access by others | Evidence showed Taylor (and husband) were seen transporting the specific suitcases and gave an unreasonable explanation, supporting the predicate | Even if a Hardesty inference had been entered, the predicate was supported and would not be erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Higginbotham v. State, 356 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (extraneous-offense testimony may be erroneous if witness testimony is conclusory or insufficiently proven)
- Johnson v. State, 967 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (harmless-error standard—whether error likely influenced the jury)
- Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (factors for assessing whether nonconstitutional error affected verdict)
- Hardesty v. State, 656 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (doctrine allowing inference of guilt from possession of recently stolen property without reasonable explanation)
- Jones v. State, 899 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995) (distinguishing possession in plain sight from remote-location discoveries; joint possession does not bar Hardesty inference)