Terrence Brent McNeil v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12558
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Terrence McNeil was convicted by a jury of felony murder for the death of 19‑month‑old Alycia and sentenced to life imprisonment; he appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Evidence showed Alycia suffered multiple bruises, a fractured arm, internal hemorrhages, retinal detachment, and acute blunt‑force trauma; medical witnesses testified the manner of death was homicide.
- McNeil gave four videotaped police interviews (about five hours total); the tapes were played to the jury after limited redactions; McNeil did not testify.
- Defense counsel explicitly requested omission of extraneous‑offense limiting and burden‑of‑proof instructions from the jury charge as a tactical decision to avoid drawing attention to other injuries.
- McNeil argued counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to request a burden‑of‑proof and limiting instruction regarding extraneous offenses, (2) failing to object to portions of the videotaped interviews (hearsay, improper opinion, Rule 403), and (3) that counsel’s cumulative performance prejudiced the trial outcome.
- The court reviewed the claims under Strickland, found trial strategy to explain the omission of extraneous‑offense instructions, concluded most contested interview statements were admissible (or cumulative of expert testimony), and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McNeil) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to request burden‑of‑proof and limiting instruction on extraneous offenses | Counsel should have requested those instructions; omission was deficient and prejudicial (cites Ex parte Varelas) | Counsel intentionally omitted the instructions as trial strategy to avoid highlighting other injuries | Not ineffective — counsel’s strategic decision is on the record and not deficient |
| 2. Failure to object to portions of videotaped statements (hearsay, opinion, Rule 403) | Counsel should have objected to officers’ medical‑style statements and other improper testimony in the tapes | Many interviewer statements were contextual/background, not offered for truth; where overlapping medical content existed it was cumulative of expert testimony | Not ineffective — objections would likely fail or be harmless because of admissible context and cumulative expert evidence |
| 3. Totality of representation | Cumulative errors show deficient performance and prejudice the verdict | Overall representation and strength of evidence were sufficient; isolated issues do not establish prejudice | Not ineffective — no reasonable probability of different outcome under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ex parte Varelas, 45 S.W.3d 627 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (counsel’s failure to request extraneous‑offense instructions can be deficient where not strategic)
- George v. State, 890 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) (jury must be instructed that extraneous‑offense evidence may be considered only if proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) (failure to object to proper questions and admissible testimony is not ineffective assistance)