Tammy Kay Taylor v. State
06-14-00222-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 26, 2015Background
- Tammy Kay Taylor was employed at the Royal Inn hotel in Sulphur Springs and later worked at Family Mart; she was accused of stealing from the hotel while the owners were in India.
- Owners Jitendra and Jaya Patel returned on January 17, 2014, and found their hotel dwelling burglarized; Taylor was out of town and did not return to work.
- A Family Mart owner, Rupinderit Singh, testified at trial that Taylor had stolen money from his store (an extraneous-offense allegation).
- Taylor was indicted for burglary of a habitation (intent to commit theft) and tried in a bench trial; the trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to 15 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Taylor argues (1) the trial court improperly admitted unproven extraneous-offense testimony in violation of the standard announced in Higginbotham, and (2) the court improperly drew a Hardesty inference from Taylor’s possession of allegedly stolen property when others had equal access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extraneous-offense testimony under Tex. Penal Code §31.03(c)(1) | Taylor: State failed to prove the Family Mart theft beyond a reasonable doubt; Higginbotham requires proof of extraneous offenses beyond a reasonable doubt | State: §31.03(c)(1) and Rule 404(b) do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt (argued in Higginbotham) | Trial court admitted the extraneous-offense testimony; court convicted Taylor (appellant seeks reversal) |
| Use of possession inference (Hardesty) when others had equal access | Taylor: No inference permitted because stolen property was found where at least two other persons had equal right/facility of access (citing Pardee/Blevins) | State: Possession plus no reasonable explanation permits inference of guilt (Poncio/Hardesty) | Trial court applied inference; conviction resulted (appellant contends inference improper and requests reversal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Higginbotham v. State, 356 S.W.3d 584 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (held extraneous-offense testimony introduced at guilt/innocence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- George v. State, 890 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (extraneous offenses at guilt/innocence require proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Hardesty v. State, 656 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (possession of recently stolen property plus lack of reasonable explanation permits an inference of guilt)
- Poncio v. State, 185 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discusses standards for drawing inference from possession of stolen property)
- Blevins v. State, 6 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999) (no inference of guilt where stolen property was found in a location accessible to others)