Tarius Manuere v. State
10-13-00384-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Victim K.E. made outcry reports alleging sexual abuse by her step-father Noah and appellant Tarius Manuere; a forensic interview was conducted and an outcry document prepared.
- K.E.’s medical exam revealed pregnancy with Noah as the father; police obtained arrest warrants for both men.
- Appellant and Noah abruptly left work, bought one-way tickets and fled; both were arrested in Hawaii months later.
- Appellant was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a child but the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment.
- Appellant raised six issues on appeal; the court addressed claims about outcry-hearsay notice, admission of flight evidence, limiting instruction, challenges for cause/peremptory strikes, and Batson claims, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Manuere) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s outcry statements (notice of instances) | State relied on forensic interviewer Bailey as outcry witness and maintained the interview materials were available to defense | Manuere argued the State failed to disclose a fourth instance (surprise) and objected to exhibit admission | Preservation failed: trial objection focused on nondelivery of exhibit, not on missing-notice of a fourth instance or hearsay; issue waived and overruled |
| Admission of flight evidence (discovery/notice & relevance) | Flight to Hawaii was relevant as res gestae and circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt; admissible without special extraneous-act notice | Manuere argued admission violated discovery order, rules, and constitutional protections | Flight evidence admissible; defendant failed to show flight was connected to other transaction; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Failure to give limiting instruction about flight evidence | State: flight was same-transaction contextual evidence and res gestae, so no limiting instruction required | Manuere: requested limiting instruction; absence prejudiced jury consideration of flight | No limiting instruction required for same-transaction contextual evidence; defendant failed to show egregious harm |
| Denial of challenges for cause and request for additional peremptory strikes | State argued venire members were able to follow law and be fair; trial court best to assess demeanor | Manuere said two veniremembers should have been excused for cause and he was forced to use peremptory strikes, exhausting strikes and seating objectionable jurors | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying challenges for cause; Comeaux harm factors not established; issue overruled |
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of four Black venirepersons | State provided race-neutral reasons (age/experience, demeanor, familiarity with defense counsel, prior outcry-witness role/attitudes) | Manuere argued strikes were racially motivated, removing the first Black venirepersons | Trial court found State’s explanations race-neutral and credible; appellate court deferred and held denials not clearly erroneous; Batson claims overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (flight admissible as circumstance from which inference of guilt may be drawn)
- Bigby v. State, 892 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (defendant must show flight connected to other transaction to exclude relevancy)
- Rumbaugh v. State, 629 S.W.2d 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (relevancy rules for escape/flight evidence)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutor may not use peremptory strikes based on race)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (trial-court credibility findings in Batson context entitled to great deference)
- Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (requirements and harm analysis for erroneous denial of challenge for cause)
- Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (challenge for cause when juror cannot impartially judge credibility)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (egregious harm standard for preserved jury-charge error)