Terrance Germaine Wilkins v. State
05-14-01365-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 4, 2015Background
- Victim Carlon Hellner was found shot to death in his apartment on October 26, 2010; his roommate Sarah Malesky testified that Terrance Wilkins ("Youngster") forced his way in, threatened her, demanded money and marijuana, and apologized for what happened to her "daddy" before locking her in a bathroom.
- Malesky and Hellner sold marijuana from the apartment; Hellner had relapsed on crack shortly before his death.
- Physical evidence: two .32-caliber bullets fired from the same gun; close-range wounds; gunshot-residue particles on victim’s hand and two primer particles on Malesky’s hand; no fingerprints, DNA, or firearms directly linking Wilkins to the scene at trial.
- Wilkins was arrested 20 days later, gave a recorded statement admitting he was in the apartment with a pistol and searching the freezer for drugs but denying shooting Hellner.
- Fingernail clippings from the victim were taken at autopsy but DNA testing occurred during trial and showed biological material under the victim’s right fingernails that did not match Wilkins or Malesky.
- Jury convicted Wilkins of capital murder (murder in course of robbery); court imposed life without parole. On appeal Wilkins raised sufficiency, Brady/disclosure and numerous mistrial and evidentiary challenges; appellate court affirmed as modified to correct judgment language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support capital-murder (robbery theory) | Evidence (Malesky’s eyewitness testimony, Wilkins’ admissions he was there armed and searched freezer, flight, timing of death) suffices to show intent to obtain/maintain control of property formed contemporaneously with murder | Argued police failed to investigate; no physical evidence ties him to shooting; Malesky unreliable and inconsistent; nothing actually stolen | Affirmed: viewing evidence in the light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Brady/tardy disclosure about Malesky’s recovered belongings (purse, $500, meds) | Disclosure occurred during trial and defense received and used the info in cross-examination and closing | Failure to disclose earlier impaired preparation and voir dire; sought mistrial/curative instruction | Denied mistrial and curative instruction: late disclosure not shown to be materially prejudicial because defense had opportunity to use it and did not request continuance |
| Late testing/disclosure of DNA from victim’s fingernail clippings | State: clippings were known and produced earlier; testing occurred during trial while parties agreed to continue; evidence not suppressed by State | Counsel argued clippings/DNA were newly discovered Brady material and prejudicial because results excluded Wilkins | Denied mistrial: appellate court held defense had autopsy report months earlier referencing clippings (defense oversight), so no Brady suppression by State; no abuse of discretion |
| Hearsay testimony by detectives / jury instructed to disregard | State elicited answers; court sustained objections and instructed jury to disregard | Wilkins sought mistrial, arguing the hearsay was prejudicial and incurable | Denied mistrial: prompt sustain and instruction cured error; not of the indelible character requiring mistrial |
| Prosecutor’s improper question whether defendant was telling the truth during interrogation | State sought testimony on truthfulness (improper) | Counsel objected; requested mistrial noting prejudice from question | Denied mistrial: question unanswered, court later instructed jury to disregard; presumption jury followed instruction |
| Courtroom disturbance by bystander during testimony of victim’s relative | State: disturbance brief and no discernable statements; court instructed jury to disregard | Wilkins: outburst prejudiced jury on implication of guilt; requested mistrial | Denied mistrial: court’s curative instruction adequate; no reasonable probability verdict affected |
| Prosecutorial closing comment praising co-counsel for calling defendant’s sister | State argued isolated, not injecting new facts, and cured by instruction | Wilkins sought mistrial as improper argument and prejudicial | Denied mistrial: comment improper but brief, no new facts, court sustained objection and instructed jury to disregard; not extreme or incurable |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of 911 Incident Detail Report (custodian testified, operator unavailable) | 911 report is nontestimonial business/public record prepared to aid emergency response; custodian properly authenticated | Wilkins argued he was denied confrontation regarding whether phone number was auto-populated or manually entered | Overruled: report nontestimonial, not prepared for prosecutorial use; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause |
| Exclusion of defendant’s offer to take a polygraph | State: polygraph evidence unreliable and inadmissible; willingness to take polygraph is self-serving, meant to prove truthfulness | Wilkins argued willingness to take polygraph impeaches inference of flight and shows cooperation | Overruled: polygraph-related statements inadmissible; trial court correctly excluded evidence |
| Admission of jail phone-call recordings | State: recordings admissible; inmates are warned calls are recorded; not custodial interrogation by police agents | Wilkins argued due process/Miranda and article 38.22 concerns | Overruled: recorded jail calls admissible (no legitimate expectation of privacy and not the product of custodial interrogation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements; 911-call analysis)
- Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (business/public records generally nontestimonial unless prepared for prosecution)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation and warnings)
- Lincecum v. State, 736 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. Crim. App.) ("in the course of committing" robbery definition)
- Sheffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App.) (intent to obtain/maintain control may be formed before or contemporaneously with murder)
- Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State need not prove completed theft to show robbery/attempted robbery)
- Thornton v. State, 425 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to factfinder on credibility; sufficiency standard)
- Alvarado v. State, 912 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence may support inference of intent to rob)