Thomas, Jeremy
PD-1086-15
| Tex. App. | Sep 24, 2015Background
- Jeremy Thomas was convicted of felony murder by a jury in Harris County and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Eyewitness identifications were central: Trancquena Johnson and Ochelata Reliford placed Thomas at the scene, but their prior statements contained inconsistencies about numbers, heights, clothing, and familiarity with Thomas; a third witness, Brandon Lusk, gave a different description of the shooter.
- During deliberations the jury requested read-back of testimony concerning the number of people and shirt colors outside the victim’s apartment; the trial court read only specified excerpts from the State’s direct examination of Johnson and omitted portions of Johnson’s cross-examination that mentioned a woman and a man in a white shirt.
- Thomas objected that the omitted cross-examination testimony was responsive and material; the trial court overruled and the jury convicted.
- Voir dire: Venireperson No. 25 said he “probably” could not give a 100% fair trial based on appearance (calling Thomas a “thug”) but also said he could follow the law and hold the State to its burden; the trial court kept him after bench questioning and defense used a peremptory strike.
- Procedural posture: The First Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction; Thomas challenges (1) harm from incomplete read-back and (2) failure to strike the biased venireperson, among other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err and cause harm by failing to read back Johnson’s cross-examination about other people present? | Trial court erred by omitting cross-examination testimony responsive to the jury’s request; omitted detail materially bolstered the State’s ID evidence and was harmful. | The court’s partial read-back matched the jury’s specified request (State’s questioning); omitted line did not contradict read excerpts and thus did not affect substantial rights. | Court: Trial court should have read the cross-excerpt but omission was harmless; no reversal. |
| Was Reliford’s in-court ID inadmissible because the photo array was suggestive (multiple witnesses signed same position)? | Photo-array procedure was suggestive and could have tainted Reliford’s in-court ID. | Even if suggestive, totality of circumstances (opportunity to view, attention, certainty, consistency) supports independent origin of in-court ID. | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying suppression; in-court ID admissible. |
| Did the trial court’s voir dire remark that Thomas “looks like a thug” constitute fundamental error? | The judge’s remark tainted the venire and vitiated presumption of innocence; fundamental error that needed no contemporaneous objection. | The comment was individualized at bench, not addressed to entire venire, and trial court emphasized ability to follow law; not fundamental error and was not preserved. | Court: Not fundamental error; defense failed to object, so claim not preserved; overruled. |
| Should venireperson No. 25 have been struck for cause after stating he could not give a fair trial? | Venireperson unequivocally said he could not be fair and was biased; must be struck. | Venireperson ultimately said he could follow the law and hold State to its burden; any equivocation permits trial court discretion to seat him. | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion—answers were equivocal and bench questioning supported seating; challenge for cause denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 870 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (trial court must interpret and limit testimony read to jury under art. 36.28)
- Fox v. State, 283 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (cross-examination testimony responsive to jury request must be read; harm analysis when cross varies from direct)
- Jones v. State, 706 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (courts must avoid bolstering the State unnecessarily when responding to jury requests)
- Pugh v. State, 376 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (limitations on read-back and considerations of prejudice)
- Ray v. State, 178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional error reviewed in context of the record)
- Smith v. State, 907 S.W.2d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (juror bias/prejudice cannot be cured by the trial court when bias is against a party rather than the law)